explaining that if a defendant timely objects to an indictment on the ground of insufficiency, "the circuit 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 charged"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that if a defendant timely objects to an indictment on the ground of insufficiency, "the circuit 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 charged"
- explaining that the trial court should evaluate the sufficiency of an 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 intended to be charged"
- holding that the sufficiency of an indictment is no longer to be considered an issue of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore a defendant must raise an issue regarding the sufficiency of the indictment to the trial court in order to preserve the error for direct appellate review
- explaining issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and clarifying a court’s subject matter jurisdiction is that court’s power “to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bayly v. State, 397 S.C. 290 (2012)
He opines that Gentry is inapposite because Gentry merely concerned the appropriate time to raise a challenge to the sufficiency of an indictment.
Distinguished by State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101 (2011)
Because the sufficiency of the indictment is not at issue here, Gentry is inapposite.
The opinion
PLEICONES, J.,
dissenting in a separate opinion.
APPENDIX
While perhaps not a complete listing of all the cases affected by this decision, the following cases are overruled to the extent they combine the concept of the sufficiency of an indictment and the concept of subject matter jurisdiction, i.e. a trial court’s power to hear a charge:
1. Koon v. State, 358 S.C. 359 , 595 S.E.2d 456 (2004).
2. Thompson v. State, 357 S.C. 192 , 593 S.E.2d 139 (2004).
3. Mathis v. State, 355 S.C. 87 , 584 S.E.2d 366 (2003).
4. State v. Knuckles, 354 S.C. 626 , 583 S.E.2d 51 (2003).
5. Cohen v. State, 354 S.C. 563 , 582 S.E.2d 403 (2003).
6. Cutner v. State, 354 S.C. 151 , 580 S.E.2d 120 (2003).
7. State v. Wilkes, 353 S.C. 462 , 578 S.E.2d 717 (2003).
8. Hooks v. State, 353 S.C. 48 , 577 S.E.2d 211 (2003).
9. Joseph v. State, 351 S.C. 551 , 571 S.E.2d 280 (2002).
*106 10. State v. Parker, 351 S.C. 567 , 571 S.E.2d 288 (2002).
11. Odom v. State, 350 S.C. 300 , 566 S.E.2d 528 (2002).
12. State v. Primus, 349 S.C. 576 , 564 S.E.2d 103 (2002).
13. State v. Timmons, 349 S.C. 389 , 563 S.E.2d 657 (2002).
14. State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637 , 552 S.E.2d 745 (2001).
15. State v. Elliott, 346 S.C. 603 , 552 S.E.2d 727 (2001).
16. State v. Lynch, 344 S.C. 635 , 545 S.E.2d 511 (2001).
17. Brown v. State, 343 S.C. 342 , 540 S.E.2d 846 (2001).
18. State v. McFadden, 342 S.C. 629 , 539 S.E.2d 387 (2000).
19. Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54 , 533 S.E.2d 324 (2000).
20. Knox v. State, 340 S.C. 81 , 530 S.E.2d 887 (2000).
21. Weinhauer v. State, 334 S.C. 327 , 513 S.E.2d 840 (1999).
22. Browning v. State, 320 S.C. 366 , 465 S.E.2d 358 (1995).
23. Johnson v. State, 319 S.C. 62 , 459 S.E.2d 840 (1995).
24. Hopkins v. State, 317 S.C. 7 , 451 S.E.2d 389 (1994).
25. Slack v. State, 311 S.C. 415 , 429 S.E.2d 801 (1993). 10
26. State v. Evans, 307 S.C. 477 , 415 S.E.2d 816 (1992).
27. State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497 , 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987).
28. State v. Beachum, 288 S.C. 325 , 342 S.E.2d 597 (1986).
29. Summerall v. State, 278 S.C. 255 , 294 S.E.2d 344 (1982).
30. State v. Langford, 223 S.C. 20 , 73 S.E.2d 854 (1953).
31. State v. Hann, 196 S.C. 211 , 12 S.E.2d 720 (1940).
32. State v. Lazarus, 83 S.C. 215 , 65 S.E. 270 (1909).
33. State v. Campbell, 361 S.C. 529 , 605 S.E.2d 576 (Ct.App.2004).
34. State v. Walton, 361 S.C. 282 , 603 S.E.2d 873 (Ct.App.2004).
*107 35. State v. Gonzales, 360 S.C. 263 , 600 S.E.2d 122 (Ct.App.2004).
36. State v. Perry, 358 S.C. 633 , 595 S.E.2d 883 (Ct.App.2004).
37. State v. Barnett, 358 S.C. 199 , 594 S.E.2d 534 (Ct.App.2004).
38. State v. Bryson, 357 S.C. 106 , 591 S.E.2d 637 (Ct.App.2003).
39. State v. Smalls, 354 S.C. 498 , 581 S.E.2d 850 (Ct.App.2003).
40. State v. Wright, 354 S.C. 48 , 579 S.E.2d 538 (Ct.App.2003).
41. State v. Bullard, 348 S.C. 611 , 560 S.E.2d 436 (Ct.App.2002).
42. State v. Hamilton, 344 S.C. 344 , 543 S.E.2d 586 (Ct.App.2001).
43. In re Jason T., 340 S.C. 455 , 531 S.E.2d 544 (Ct.App.2000).
44. State v. Ervin, 333 S.C. 351 , 510 S.E.2d 220 (Ct.App.1998).
. Abrogated on other grounds by Simpson v. State, 329 S.C. 43 , 495 S.E.2d 429 (1998).