From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smart

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 20, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-371 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-371

06-20-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Thomas Smart, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.


Unpublished Opinion

Submitted June 1, 2012

Appeal From Horry County William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Smart was convicted of throwing bodily fluids on a law enforcement officer, failure to stop for a blue light, threatening a public official, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Smart argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on his charge of throwing bodily fluids in violation of section 24-13-470 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011), arguing his act of spitting blood on an arresting officer did not constitute throwing bodily fluids under the statute. We affirmpursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 623 (2011) (explaining that, although penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the court must interpret the statute according to its literal meaning); State v. Morgan, 352 S.C. 359, 366, 574 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating if a statutory term is unclear, the court must interpret the term using its customary meaning within the context of the statute).

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Smart

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 20, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-371 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Smart

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Thomas Smart, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 20, 2012

Citations

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-371 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2012)