State v. Petty

7 Citing cases

  1. Mims Amusement Co. v. South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

    366 S.C. 141 (S.C. 2005)   Cited 24 times
    Stating this Court may decide a novel question of law based on its own assessment of the reasoning that best comports with the law, public policy, and the Court's sense of law, justice, and right

    An action for forfeiture of property is a civil action at law. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines, 338 S.C. at 184, 525 S.E.2d at 876; State v. Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 208, 241 S.E.2d 561, 562 (1978). Under S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2712 (2000), video gaming machines that are operated or possessed in violation of S.C. Code Ann. § 12-21-2710 (2000) are subject to forfeiture as contraband per se.

  2. State v. 192 Coin-Operated Video Game Machines

    338 S.C. 176 (S.C. 2000)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that possession of slot machines violated § 2710

    An action for forfeiture of property is a civil action at law. State v. Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 241 S.E.2d 561 (1978). DISCUSSION

  3. Medlock v. One 1985 Jeep Cherokee

    322 S.C. 127 (S.C. 1996)   Cited 37 times
    Holding a defendant must object in the trial court to properly preserve a double jeopardy issue for appellate review

    See also S.C. Code Ann. § 44-53-540(a) (1985) (the state does not have to negate any exemption or exception given under the statute). Appellant relies on State v. Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 241 S.E.2d 561 (1978), to support her argument. Petty involved an action pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-19-80 (1976), declaring money used in gambling forfeited to the state. That case set the state's burden of proof at preponderance of the evidence under the statute there involved.

  4. Medlock v. 1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up Vin 1FTDF15YGFNA22049

    308 S.C. 68 (S.C. 1992)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that "defendant owners possess a right to a jury trial where the property subject to forfeiture under sections 44-53-520 and -530 is property normally used for lawful purposes"

    Section 44-53-530 contemplates an action in rem, which is a civil proceeding against the property itself. See State v. Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 241 S.E.2d 561 (1978). We discern, however, that the character of the action as one triable at common law is not changed because the action proceeds in rem and not in personam.

  5. State v. Toomer

    284 S.E.2d 783 (S.C. 1981)

    Forfeiture was not an issue before the magistrate and was not available to him as part of the sentence he could impose. The forfeiture in this case is an automatic legislative sanction against the property involved. It is generally considered an in rem proceeding against the property itself, see State v. Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 241 S.E.2d 561 (1968), and is imposed to prevent continued employment of that property in defiance of state law. Here, the legislature has authorized the Marine Resources Division to enforce the forfeiture provision.

  6. Sumter Police Dept. v. Blue Mazda Truck

    330 S.C. 371 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 26 times

    An action for forfeiture of property is a civil action at law. State v. Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 241 S.E.2d 561 (1978). "In an action at law, on appeal of a case tried without a jury, the findings of fact of the judge will not be disturbed on appeal unless found to be without evidence which reasonably supports the judge's findings."

  7. Ducworth v. Neely

    319 S.C. 158 (S.C. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 7 times

    An action for forfeiture is a civil action at law. State v.Petty, 270 S.C. 206, 241 S.E.2d 561 (1978); Cf. Medlock v.1985 Ford F-150 Pick Up Vin 1FTDF15YGFNA22049, 308 S.C. 68, 417 S.E.2d 85 (1992) (right to jury trial exists in civil forfeiture proceedings where property at issue is normally used for lawful purposes). A civil in rem proceeding is ordinarily against the property itself.