From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Key

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 7, 1984
282 S.C. 413 (S.C. 1984)

Opinion

22152

Submitted May 17, 1984.

Decided August 7, 1984.

Asst. Appellant Defender William Isaac Diggs, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.


Submitted May 17, 1984.

Decided Aug. 7, 1984.


Appellant was arrested and found to be in possession of slightly under two ounces of marijuana. He was convicted under S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-370 (Supp. 1983) of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. Appellant excepts to the trial judge's instruction.

The judge charged the jury:

I charge you that prima facie guilty as used in that Statute regarding possession of more than an ounce of marijuana, the Defendant is deemed guilty of intent to distribute unless evidence satisfying you to the contrary is presented. In other words, that prima facie case could be rebutted by other evidence. Upon the presentation of such evidence, it would be for you the jury to determine whether or not the State has proven the Defendant guilty of that charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge could have been taken by the jury as requiring the defendant to personally rebut or explain his possession of more than one ounce of marijuana. Therefore, we hold the instruction constitutes reversible error. State v. Legette, S.C. 316 S.E.2d 411 (1984); State v. Cooper, 279 S.C. 301, 306 S.E.2d 598 (1983). According, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Key

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Aug 7, 1984
282 S.C. 413 (S.C. 1984)
Case details for

State v. Key

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Respondent, v. David Eugene KEY, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Aug 7, 1984

Citations

282 S.C. 413 (S.C. 1984)
319 S.E.2d 338

Citing Cases

State v. Strange

We need not determine whether the jury charge about which Strange complains was an unconstitutional…

State v. Neva

Specifically, a charge that a prima facie case may be rebutted by other evidence is impermissible. State v.…