Who represented South Carolina at preliminary hearings for General Sessions cases?

Plain-English summary

A South Carolina circuit solicitor asked whether his county solicitor or the city attorney should handle preliminary hearings for General Sessions cases initiated by Dillon police. In January 2002, the AG said the circuit solicitor had the responsibility and right to represent the state at those hearings, unless the Attorney General had assumed the prosecution. The state remained the prosecuting authority even when a warrant originated in municipal court.

The AG reasoned that a requested preliminary hearing was part of the state-law criminal case, and that solicitors controlled most such prosecutions. A footnote distinguished municipal-ordinance cases, whose penalties did not give rise to the General Sessions preliminary-hearing question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Circuit solicitors

The opinion placed responsibility for General Sessions preliminary hearings with the solicitor, subject to prosecution by the Attorney General.

Municipal attorneys

The letter said a city attorney did not take over a state-law prosecution because municipal officers made the case or a warrant began in municipal court.

Common questions

Could the city attorney insist on conducting the hearing for city-police cases? A: The AG said the solicitor represented the state at General Sessions preliminary hearings unless the Attorney General took over.

Did the municipal origin of a warrant change the prosecuting authority? A: No. The opinion said the state remained the prosecutor in a state-law criminal case.

Background and statutory framework

The AG relied on decisions distinguishing a municipal court’s role from the state’s prosecuting authority and describing the solicitor’s control of the state’s criminal case. He applied those principles to the preliminary-hearing stage.

Citations and references

• City of Lake City v. Daniels: state remained prosecutor despite municipal-court warrant.
• State v. Addis: solicitor’s control of state criminal prosecution cited by the AG.

Official title

Asking whether …“to whom has the responsibility and the right, to represent the State at preliminary hearings that are within the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions?”

Requester

The Honorable Jay Hodge, Solicitor, Fourth Judicial Circuit

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/january-25-2002-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02jan25hodge.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

January 25, 2002
(

L
The Honorable Jay Hodge
Solicitor, Fourth Judicial Circuit
Darlington County Courthouse
I Public Square
Darlington, South Carolina 29532

Re:

Solicitor's authority - Preliminary Hearings

Dear Solicitor Hodge:
In a letter to this Office, you indicate that you have employed a full-time Solicitor for Dillon County who wishes to handle all preliminary hearings for General Sessions cases made in Dillon County. You also indicate, however, that the City Attorney for Dillon wishes to handle preliminary hearings requested for General Sessions cases made by officers of the Dillon Police Department. Given this conflict, you request an "opinion as to whom has the responsibility, and the right, to represent the State at preliminary hearings that are within the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions?" When a criminal case involves a violation of State law initiated by a warrant issued by and returnable to a municipal court, the municipality is not substituted as the prosecuting authority. City of Lake City v. Daniels, 268 S.C. 396, 234 S.E.2d 222 (1977). "The State remains throughout as the prosecuting authority." Id. The Attorney General is designated by State Constitution as the chief prosecuting officer of the State with the circuit solicitors actually performing the prosecution of most criminal cases. State, ex rel. McLeod v. Snipes, 266 S.C. 415, 223 S.E.2d 853 (1976). In State v. Addis, 257 S.C. 482, 186 S.E.2d 415 (1972), the Supreme Court held that "[i]n every criminal prosecution the responsibility for the conduct of the trial is upon the solicitor and he must and does have full control of the State's case."

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING •

POST OFFICE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549 • TELEPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

rl
The Honorable Jay Hodge
January 25, 2002
Page 2

It goes with out saying that a charge which allows for a preliminary hearing involves a violation of State law. 1 It further goes without saying that, once requested, the preliminary hearing becomes an integral part of the case against the defendant. Accordingly, it is my opinion that, unless prosecution has been assumed by the Attorney General, the solicitor has "the responsibility, and the right, to represent the State at preliminary hearings that are within the jurisdiction of the Court of General Sessions." f

L
,/

.·

David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
Reviewed and approved by:

l

\

~p,wc__
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

I

DK.A/an

1

Penalties for violations of municipal ordinances are limited to the jurisdiction levels of magistrate's courts. Accordingly no preliminary hearing is required in such cases.