Could a South Carolina municipal judge compel a visiting out-of-county witness to appear?

Plain-English summary

A Greenwood municipal judge asked about a witness who lived in another South Carolina county but was visiting Greenwood when served with a subpoena. If that person failed to appear, could the judge issue a rule to show cause and then a bench warrant for contempt? In 2006, the Attorney General said no under the statute the judge cited. Section 22-3-930 authorized a summons for a person who resided in the county, and the AG concluded that a visitor from another county did not meet that condition.

The opinion said the same rule applied to municipal judges through the statute granting them magistrates' criminal-case powers. Because the subpoena provision did not cover the out-of-county resident, the AG said a rule to show cause was unauthorized and a bench warrant would be improper on those facts. It did not decide every possible means of obtaining testimony from an out-of-county witness.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2006. 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.

Common questions

Q: Was service in Greenwood enough if the witness lived elsewhere? A: No. The AG read § 22-3-930 as applying to a witness who resided in the county, not a nonresident who happened to be visiting.

Q: Could the judge issue a rule to show cause after that witness did not appear? A: The opinion said the municipal judge lacked authority to do so under that subpoena provision.

Q: Could the judge issue a bench warrant for contempt on those facts? A: The AG said that would be improper because the statute did not authorize the underlying compulsion of the visiting out-of-county resident.

Background and statutory framework

The judge described a crime witness who received a summons before returning to his home county. The opinion quoted § 22-3-930's residency requirement and its rule-to-show-cause language. It also quoted § 14-25-45 on municipal courts' criminal-case powers and applied the statutes' ordinary wording to the judge's scenario.

Citations and references

The opinion quotes S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-930 and S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-45. It also refers to a 1980 AG opinion on magistrates' limited subpoena powers.

Official title

Questioning whether an individual fails to appear in court, can a rule to show cause be issued? And if so, if that individual fails to appear pursuant to the subpoena, can a bench warrant be issued for contempt?

Requester

The Honorable B. Lee Miller, Municipal Court Judge

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-15-2006/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mar15-0-Miller-2.pdf
• Archive note: The two March 15 landing pages link to each other's subject PDF. This PDF contains the subpoena opinion described by this page's title.

Original opinion text

I

·l

HEl"RY Mc~1A.STER
ATIORl\EY GENERA L

March 15, 2006

I

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Municipal Court Judge
Post Office Box 40
Greenwood, South Carolina 29648
Dear Judge Miller:
In a letter to this office you referenced the following situation:

An individual, who resides in another county in South Carolina, is V1S1ttng Greenwood and is a witness to a crime within the city limits of Greenwood. A subpoena is issued to the individual pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-930 prior to the individual returning to his home county. r

L.

You have asked whether ifthe individual fails to appear in court, can a rule to show cause be issued? If a rule to show cause is issued and properly served on the individual who resides in another county, if that individual fails to appear pursuant to the subpoena, can a bench warrant be issued for contempt? Section 22-3-930 states: Any magistrate, on the application of a party to a cause pending before the magistrate, must issue a summons citing any person whose testimony may be required in the cause and who resides in the county to appear before the magistrate at a certain time and place to give evidence. This summons must be served in a manner such that it is received by the witness at least one day before his attendance is required. If the witness fails or refuses to attend, the magistrate may issue a rule to show cause commanding the witness to be brought before the magistrate or, if any witness attending refuses to give evidence without good cause shown, the magistrate may punish the witness for contempt by imposition of a sentence up to the limits imposed on magistrates' courts in Section 22-3-550. (emphasis added).

;d~o,~~OrnCE

Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, SC 292 11-1549

•

TELEPHONE 803-734-3970

•

FA<"SIMtr F S01.?'\1. A'?!l1

J

The Honorable B. Lee Miller
Page2
March 15, 2006

Such provision is applicable to criminal and civil cases before a magistrate. Such provision is also applicable to municipal court judges inasmuch as S.C. Code Ann. § 14-25-45 states that the municipal court " ... shall also have all such powers, duties and jurisdiction in criminal cases made under state law and conforred upon magistrates."

f
L

I
I

In interpreting Section 22-3-930, certain basic principles must be observed. The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent. State v. Martin, 293 S.C. 46, 358 S.E.2d 697 (1987). Typically, legislative intent is determined by applying the words used by the General Assembly in their usual and ordinary significance. Martin v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, 256 S.C. 577, 183 S.E.2d 451 (1971). Resort to subtle or forced construction for the purpose oflimiting or expanding the operation of a statute should not be undertaken. Walton v. Walton, 282 S.C. 165, 318 S.E.2d 14 (1984). Courts must apply the clear and unambiguous terms of a statute according to their literal meaning and statutes should be given a reasonable and practical construction which is consistent with the policy and purpose expressed therein. State v. Blackmon, 304 S.C. 270, 403 S.E.2d 660 (1991); Jones v. South Carolina State Highway Department, 247 S.C. 132, 146 S.E.2d 166 (1966). Pursuant to Section 22-3-930, a municipal judge may only issue a subpoena to an individual ''who resides in the county" to appear in court and testify. In my opinion, such provision would be inapplicable to an individual who resides in another county and is merely visiting the county from which the subpoena is issued .. A prior opinion of this office dated June 10, 1980 construed Section 22-3-920 to conclude that magistrates "do not have wide powers to compel testimony" and would not have the authority to subpoena a state agency outside their county. Therefore, in my opinion, a municipal judge would not be authorized to issue a rule to show cause to an individual who resides in a county other than that of the municipal judge and who fails to appear in court pursuant to a subpoena issued by that municipal judge. Therefore, it would be improper to issue a bench warrant in such circumstances. Sincerely,

a2~ vi !ZJaL__
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

l;fzJB-' 0»72

Robert D. Cook
'
Assistant Deputy Attorney General