State v. Brannon, 388 S.C. 498

697 S.E.2d 593 (2010) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · August 9, 2010 · No. No. 26855

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the result reached by the court of appeals, holding that the State failed to present evidence that an arrest was being made when Ricky Brannon fled from uniformed officers. The court distinguished a Fourth Amendment seizure from an arrest under South Carolina law and applied the state-law common-law arrest framework, focusing on the officers' subjective intent and the suspect's submission. A dissent would have held that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, created a jury question on resisting arrest.

Holdings

  1. A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine to preserve an issue for appellate review; the party must fairly raise the issue in the trial court and provide that court an opportunity to rule.
  2. An arrest and a Fourth Amendment seizure are distinct legal concepts that require distinct inquiries; a person may be seized under the Fourth Amendment without being arrested under state law.
  3. The State failed to present evidence that an arrest was being made when Brannon fled; therefore, Brannon was entitled to a directed verdict on the resisting-arrest charge.
  4. The court did not need to decide whether Brannon's flight constituted resistance because the absence of evidence that an arrest was being made was independently dispositive.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brannon preserved the issue concerning the propriety of the court of appeals' arrest analysis even though his directed-verdict motion did not use the terms "seizure" or "Fourth Amendment."
  2. Whether arrest and Fourth Amendment seizure are distinct concepts requiring distinct analyses under South Carolina law.
  3. Whether the State presented evidence that an arrest was being made when Brannon fled, as required for a conviction under South Carolina Code section 16-9-320(A).
  4. Whether the court needed to decide whether Brannon's flight constituted resistance after finding that the State failed to prove that an arrest was being made.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (19)

  • State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006)(followed)
  • State v. Ladner, 373 S.C. 103, 120, 644 S.E.2d 684, 693 (2007)(followed)
  • State v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23, 32, 667 S.E.2d 728, 733 (2008)(followed)
  • State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003)(followed)
  • Hubbard v. Rowe, 192 S.C. 12, 19, 5 S.E.2d 187, 189 (1939)(followed)
  • State v. Mitchell, 378 S.C. 305, 662 S.E.2d 493 (Ct. App. 2008)(followed)
  • Mickle v. Blackmon, 255 S.C. 136, 141-42, 177 S.E.2d 548, 549-50 (1970)(not reached)
  • State v. Attardo, 263 S.C. 546, 550, 211 S.E.2d 868, 870 (1975)(followed)
  • State v. Brown, 360 S.C. 581, 586, 602 S.E.2d 392, 395 (2004)(followed)
  • Whiteside v. Cherokee Cty. Sch. Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 340, 428 S.E.2d 886, 889 (1993)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from South Carolina Supreme Court