Opinion ID: 1290712
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: adequacy of indictments

Text: Appellant claims error in the trial judge's refusal to quash the indictments as vague and duplicitous. We disagree. An indictment is adequate if the offense is stated with sufficient certainty and particularity to enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce, the defendant to know what he is called upon to answer, and acquittal or conviction to be placed in bar to any subsequent conviction. State v. Crenshaw , 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E. (2d) 61 (1980). The wording of the indictments accords with the language of S.C. Code Ann. Section 16-15-320 (1985), which prohibits obscenity and enumerates four methods by which a defendant may be in violation. Prior to trial the court amended the indictments, eliminating possible confusion. The indictments were clear, and the trial judge's refusal to quash them was correct. Nor were the indictments duplicitous. The statute prohibits obscenity; the indictments relate to one crime only, and the description of more than one method of violation does not create a new crime. See, State v. Jeffcoat , 279 S.C. 167, 303 S.E. (2d) 855 (1983). Moreover, any possible duplication was remedied by amendment of the indictments, eliminating any surplusage.