# State v. Gentry

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · March 7, 2005 · 363 S.C. 93

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586250

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE, Respondent, v. Ricky Dennis GENTRY, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** March 7, 2005
- **Citations:** 363 S.C. 93; 610 S.E.2d 494; 2005 S.C. LEXIS 69
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pleicones
- **Judges:** Moore, Pleicones, Toal, Waller, Burnett
- **Cited by:** 207 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586250

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 …
- 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 up…
- 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…
- 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”
- explaining that “[i]n determining whether an indictment meets the sufficiency standard, the court must look at the indictment with a practical eye in view of all the surrounding circumstances,” and citing precedent and S.C. Code Ann. § 17-19-20 (2003)

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9586250. Public record. Not legal advice.