Odom v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that in the absence of an indictment, there must be a valid waiver of presentment for the trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction of the offense
• holding section 17-23-140 of the South Carolina Code requires a waiver of presentment to be in writing and a defendant’s oral waiver is insufficient to bestow subject matter jurisdiction
• requiring waivers of presentment to be in writing in order to be valid
• “In the absence of an indictment, there must be a valid waiver of presentment for the trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction of the offense.”
• “In the absence of an indictment, there must be a valid waiver of presentment for the trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction of the offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Gentry
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2005-03-07· cited 229×
• State v. Smalls
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-05-05· cited 8×

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Johnson v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1988-01-25· cited 80×
• State v. Evans
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-03-16· cited 30×
• Summerall v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1982-08-09· cited 17×
• State v. Martin
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1982-08-09· cited 4×
• State v. Clarkson
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1999-11-08· cited 4×
• Phillips v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1984-03-19· cited 3×
• State v. Clarkson
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-10-01· cited 1×