indictment meets the sufficiency standard in South Carolina

2026See Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ("In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances.").

2026See Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ("In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances.").

2021Further, "one is to look at the 'surrounding circumstances' that existed pre-trial, in order to determine whether a given defendant has been 'prejudiced,' i.e., taken by surprise and hence unable to combat the charges against him." State v. Baker, 411 S.C. 583, 589 , 769 S.E.2d 860, 864 (2015) (quoting State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 86 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 784 (1991)). "[W]hether the indictment could be more definite or certain is irrelevant." Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 .

2021Further, "one is to look at the 'surrounding circumstances' that existed pre-trial, in order to determine whether a given defendant has been 'prejudiced,' i.e., taken by surprise and hence unable to combat the charges against him." State v. Baker, 411 S.C. 583, 589 , 769 S.E.2d 860, 864 (2015) (quoting State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 86 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 784 (1991)). "[W]hether the indictment could be more definite or certain is irrelevant." Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 .

2018"In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the [circuit] court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances." State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 97 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 853 (Ct. App. 2007). "[T]he true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." State v. Ham, 259 S.C. 118, 129 , 191 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1972).

2018"In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the [circuit] court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances." State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 97 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 853 (Ct. App. 2007). "[T]he true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." State v. Ham, 259 S.C. 118, 129 , 191 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1972).

2023"When a defendant timely moves to quash an indictment . . . the [trial] court must determine whether the defendant[']s constitutional right to have the criminal allegations against him weighed by a properly constituted grand jury has been violated." State v. Shands, 424 S.C. 106, 119 , 817 S.E.2d 524, 531 (Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495, 510 , 611 S.E.2d 510, 518 (2005)). "[A]n indictment is a notice document.

2023"When a defendant timely moves to quash an indictment . . . the [trial] court must determine whether the defendant[']s constitutional right to have the criminal allegations against him weighed by a properly constituted grand jury has been violated." State v. Shands, 424 S.C. 106, 119 , 817 S.E.2d 524, 531 (Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495, 510 , 611 S.E.2d 510, 518 (2005)). "[A]n indictment is a notice document.

2020See Baker, 411 S.C. at 589 , 769 S.E.2d at 864 ("In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the trial court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances" that "existed pre-trial, in order to determine whether a given defendant has been 'prejudiced,' i.e., taken by surprise and hence unable to combat the charges against him." (internal citations omitted)).

2020See Baker, 411 S.C. at 589 , 769 S.E.2d at 864 ("In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the trial court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances" that "existed pre-trial, in order to determine whether a given defendant has been 'prejudiced,' i.e., taken by surprise and hence unable to combat the charges against him." (internal citations omitted)).

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Byas's motion to quash the indictment: State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support."); id. ("Accordingly, an appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings when the findings are su

2015As to whether the trial court erred in denying Byas's motion to quash the indictment: State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 94 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 851 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The trial court's factual conclusions as to the sufficiency of an indictment will not be disturbed on appeal unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support."); id. ("Accordingly, an appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings when the findings are su

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2023"When a defendant timely moves to quash an indictment . . . the [trial] court must determine whether the defendant[']s constitutional right to have the criminal allegations against him weighed by a properly constituted grand jury has been violated." State v. Shands, 424 S.C. 106, 119 , 817 S.E.2d 524, 531 (Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495, 510 , 611 S.E.2d 510, 518 (2005)). "[A]n indictment is a notice document.

2023"When a defendant timely moves to quash an indictment . . . the [trial] court must determine whether the defendant[']s constitutional right to have the criminal allegations against him weighed by a properly constituted grand jury has been violated." State v. Shands, 424 S.C. 106, 119 , 817 S.E.2d 524, 531 (Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Evans v. State, 363 S.C. 495, 510 , 611 S.E.2d 510, 518 (2005)). "[A]n indictment is a notice document.

2023Further, whether the indictment could be more "To find a guilty plea is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, the record must establish the defendant had a full understanding of the consequences of his plea and the charges against him." Dalton v. State, 376 S.C. 130, 138 , 654 S.E.2d 870, 874 (Ct. App. 2007).

2023Further, whether the indictment could be more "To find a guilty plea is voluntarily and knowingly entered into, the record must establish the defendant had a full understanding of the consequences of his plea and the charges against him." Dalton v. State, 376 S.C. 130, 138 , 654 S.E.2d 870, 874 (Ct. App. 2007).

2022An indictment is sufficient if "it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." Campbell, 361 S.C. at 533 , 605 S.E.2d at 579 (quoting Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 368 , 465 S.E.2d 358, 359 (1995), overruled on other grounds by Gentry, 363 S.C. at 105-06 , 610 S.E.2d at 501-02 (overruling to the extent it combined the concepts of the sufficiency of an indictment and subject matter jurisdiction)). "[W]hether the indictment could be more definite or certain is irrelevant." Gentry, 363 S.C.

2022An indictment is sufficient if "it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." Campbell, 361 S.C. at 533 , 605 S.E.2d at 579 (quoting Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366, 368 , 465 S.E.2d 358, 359 (1995), overruled on other grounds by Gentry, 363 S.C. at 105-06 , 610 S.E.2d at 501-02 (overruling to the extent it combined the concepts of the sufficiency of an indictment and subject matter jurisdiction)). "[W]hether the indictment could be more definite or certain is irrelevant." Gentry, 363 S.C.

2018"In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the [circuit] court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances." State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 97 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 853 (Ct. App. 2007). "[T]he true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." State v. Ham, 259 S.C. 118, 129 , 191 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1972).

2018"In determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the [circuit] court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances." State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90, 97 , 654 S.E.2d 849, 853 (Ct. App. 2007). "[T]he true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could have been more definite and certain, but whether it contains the necessary elements of the offense intended to be charged and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet." State v. Ham, 259 S.C. 118, 129 , 191 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1972).

2016As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictment for unlawful conduct towards a child because it allowed the State to present duplicitous theories as to the alleged criminal acts: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court].

2016As to whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the indictment for unlawful conduct towards a child because it allowed the State to present duplicitous theories as to the alleged criminal acts: State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142 , 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial [court].

2016This [c]ourt is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous."); State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 102-03 , 610 S.E.2d 494, 500 (2005) ("[T]he [trial] court should judge the sufficiency of the indictment by determining whether (1) the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an acquittal or conviction thereon; and (2) whether it apprises the defendant of the elements of the offense that is intended to be cha

2016This [c]ourt is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous."); State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 102-03 , 610 S.E.2d 494, 500 (2005) ("[T]he [trial] court should judge the sufficiency of the indictment by determining whether (1) the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce and the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer and whether he may plead an acquittal or conviction thereon; and (2) whether it apprises the defendant of the elements of the offense that is intended to be cha

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2007See State v. Means, 367 S.C. 374, 383 , 626 S.E.2d 348, 353-54 (2006); Gentry, 363 S.C. at 103 , 610 S.E.2d at 500 ; State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 130 , 437 S.E.2d 75, 78 (1993); State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79, 83 , 409 S.E.2d 780, 782 (1991); State v. Guthrie, 352 S.C. 103, 108 , 572 S.E.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.2002) (citing State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 126 , 283 S.E.2d 582, 588 (1981); State v. Reddick, 348 S.C. 631, 637 , 560 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct.App.2002)); see also Evans, 363 S.C. at 507-09 , 611 S.E.2d at 516-17 (noting all the surrounding circumstances must be weighed to make an accurate determi

2005Code Ann. § 17-19-20 (2003)); State v. Gill , 355 S.C. 234, 240 , 584 S.E.2d 432, 435 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding in case decided before Gentry that crack cocaine indictment which did not list mens rea element of “knowingly” nevertheless was sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court).

2005Code Ann. § 17-19-20 (2003)); State v. Gill , 355 S.C. 234, 240 , 584 S.E.2d 432, 435 (Ct. App. 2003) (finding in case decided before Gentry that crack cocaine indictment which did not list mens rea element of “knowingly” nevertheless was sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court).