E. Jurisdiction

• Library: The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) (2014 Ed.)

E. Jurisdiction

1. Basic Rules

a. Geographic Concerns

Article I § 11 of the South Carolina Constitution provides in pertinent part:

No person may be held to answer for any crime the jurisdiction over which is not within the magistrate's court, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury of the county where the crime has been committed . . . . The General Assembly may provide for the waiver of an indictment by the accused.

The provision means a circuit court lacks jurisdiction over an offense in the absence of an indictment by a grand jury of the county where the offense was committed or a valid waiver of presentment of indictment. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325, 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986); Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255, 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982).

The provision does not mean a circuit court lacks jurisdiction unless it sits in the county in which the offense was committed. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477, 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992). An accused does have a right to be tried in the county in which the offense was allegedly committed, but the right is personal and is waived if not asserted in a timely fashion. Id. at 480, 415 S.E.2d at 818. Earlier cases suggesting that a circuit court lacks jurisdiction unless it sits in the county of the offense, see, e.g., State v. McLeod, 303 S.C. 420, 401 S.E.2d 175 (1991), do so on the basis of a misreading of State v. McCoy, 98 S.C. 133, 82 S.E. 280 (1914) (the bogus rule was stated in the headnote of McCoy, not in the opinion itself), and are overruled by Evans. An indictment need allege only that the offense occurred in a given county in order to confer jurisdiction upon a court there to accept a guilty plea. Jones v. State, 333 S.C. 6, 507 S.E.2d 324 (1998).

The State has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. State v. Rodriguez, 279 S.C. 106, 302 S.E.2d 666 (1983). Accord Anderson v. State, 338 S.C. 629, 527 S.E.2d 398 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Parker, 294 S.C. 465, 366 S.E.2d 10 (1988). In Rodriguez the events in question occurred at Beaufort Naval Hospital, a federal military installation. When the federal government acquires property in a state, it may obtain exclusive jurisdiction over that property. However, absent a notice of acceptance of jurisdiction filed by the United States with the Governor, the State is presumed to retain jurisdiction. Id.

b. Subject Matter Jurisdiction vs. Jurisdiction

Over the years the term "subject matter jurisdiction" has been used almost interchangeably with the term "jurisdiction." The two terms are not synonymous. A criminal court has subject matter jurisdiction when the crime being charged is statutorily designated to be tried in that particular court. A court has jurisdiction over a particular defendant when it has subject matter jurisdiction and certain other elements are present - i.e. an indictment by a grand jury. The careless use of the term "subject matter jurisdiction" over the years has lead to the unfortunate use of the term when the term "jurisdiction" should have been used. The Court recognized this confusion first in State v. Gentry, see infra, and then amplified its holding in State v. Campbell, 376 S.C. 212, 656 S.E.2d 371 (2008). The issue in Campbell was the trial court's authority to resentence a defendant when he failed to comply with a plea agreement by refusing to testify against a co-defendant. The trial court resentenced the defendant to a longer sentence finding he had violated his plea agreement. The Court reversed finding the sentencing court lost jurisdiction over the case at the end of the term of court. The Court was careful to point out that the sentencing court had not lost "subject matter jurisdiction" over the case as that term is the "power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong. A circuit court judge's power to hear criminal cases is not eliminated once a term of court ends; the power is lost only as to the particular criminal case that the judge heard within a particular term of court. Given Gentry, the term of court rule is not a rule of subject matter jurisdiction." Campbell, at 216, 656 S.E.2d at 373.

For forty years, since State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987), challenges to indictments raising what was then identified as subject matter jurisdiction could be raised at any time, even on appeal when not perfected below, Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54, 533 S.E.2d 324, (2000), and could be raised sua sponte by the court. In re Jason T, 340 S.C. 455, 531 S.E.2d 544 (Ct. App. 2000) (citing Carter v. State, 329 S.C. 355, 362, 495 S.E.2d 773, 777 (1998). The Court ended this privilege as it relates to improperly drawn indictments when it decided State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005). Following the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002), it was determined that "subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court and the sufficiency of the indictment are two distinct concepts and the blending of these concepts serves only to confuse the issue." Gentry, at 101, 610 S.E.2d at 499. Recognizing that almost all challenges to indictments have nothing to do with the circuit...