Could a South Carolina city charge a convicted defendant $150 for choosing a municipal jury trial?

Plain-English summary

Bishopville’s mayor asked whether a city could assess court costs for jury trials. The Assistant Deputy AG referred to three earlier office opinions questioning local court charges beyond state authorization under Article V of the South Carolina Constitution.

On that reasoning, he said an ordinance imposing $150 when a person was convicted by a jury trial “appears to be doubtful constitutionally.” He did not declare the ordinance invalid. The letter stated that only a court could make that determination.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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: Did the AG approve a $150 charge after conviction by a municipal jury? A: No. The author said the proposed cost appeared constitutionally doubtful.

Q: Did the opinion strike down a city ordinance? A: No. It expressly recognized that only a court could determine constitutionality.

Q: Why did the author question the charge? A: He relied on earlier office opinions about local court costs and surcharges, particularly their analysis under Article V of the state constitution.

Background and statutory framework

The letter enclosed three earlier office opinions on local court costs. Those opinions questioned or rejected local court charges beyond state authority in magistrates’ or municipal courts. Applying their reasoning, the author characterized the proposed $150 jury-trial cost as constitutionally doubtful.

Citations and references

Constitution discussed: Article V of the South Carolina Constitution. Prior office opinions discussed: the three enclosed opinions on local court costs.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/may-29-1997/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/97may29alexander.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES M O L O NY CONDO N
ATTORN EY GEN ERAL

May 29, 1997

The Honorable Thomas H. Alexander
Mayor, City of Bishopville
P.O. Box 388
Bishopville, South Carolina 29010
Re:

Informal Opinion

Dear Mayor Alexander :
By your letter of May 7, 1997, you have requested this Office's opinion as to the constitutionality of a city's assessment of court costs for jury trials. Enclosed for your review are three previous opinions of the Office that address questions analogous t o y our own. As you can see, in the Opinion dated September 15, 1 986 , we concluded that while we possessed no authority to declare a c ounty ordinance which taxed ce r tain defendants found guilty in magistrates' courts unconstitutional, such ordinance was thought to most probably contravene Article V of the South Carolina Constitution. Furthermore, the March 17, 1988 Opinion found that the practice of imposing by municipal or county ordinance costs in magistrates' courts beyond those authorized by state statute would violate Article V. Finally, in the Opinion dated March 31, 1988 we addressed the issue of whether a municipality could add a surcharge to all uniform traffic tickets res o lved in the municipal courts. Citing the foregoing opinions as authority, we stated :
[c]onsistent with the above, it appears that an ordinance of a single municipality establishing an administrative penalty for controlled substance violations which would be used in investigation and prosecuting narcotics violations would be of doubtful

"'1,, ' " ""TC D[c')'I S Biliuid'.c -....;.__ Pmr 01+1n : Bo:>< I I 5-19

IC2tt£U c__.,, y- l ~Ld fl/~ ,

•

Cou \IU l..1. SC ~921 1 - J 5-19

•

TE LEPHO'.'E:

803- / -1-1 -3970

•

FACSl\111 .tc: X0.>-253-6283

The Honorable Thomas H. Alexander
May 29, 1997
Page 2
constitutionality in light of the provisions of Article V of the State Constitution. However, only a court could make such a determination.

[

Based upon the foregoing wealth of authorities, I would advise that an ordinance imposing a court cost of $150. 00 when an individual is convicted by a jury trial appears to be doubtful constitutionally. I trust this information is responsive to your inquiry; however, if you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

I
Sincerely,

&D.

Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Reviewed and Approved

r!'dC. (1.Williams,
£2d/Vinw
7TC
III'

~eb

I

ef:uty Attorney General

I
cc:

David Bushyager, City Administrator (w/enclosures)