State v. Smart

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXPECT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Thomas Smart, Appellant. __________ Appeal From Horry County William H. Seals, Jr., Circuit Court Judge __________ Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-371 Submitted June 1, 2012 Filed June 20, 2012 __________ AFFIRMED __________ Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliot, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Thomas Smart was convicted of throwing bodily fluids on a law enforcement officer, failure to stop for a blue light, threatening a public official, and resisting arrest. On appeal, Smart argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on his charge of throwing bodily fluids in violation of section 24-13-470 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011), arguing his act of spitting blood on an arresting officer did not constitute throwing bodily fluids under the statute. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jacobs, 393 S.C. 584, 587, 713 S.E.2d 621, 623 (2011) (explaining that, although penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the defendant, the court must interpret the statute according to its literal meaning); State v. Morgan, 352 S.C. 359, 366, 574 S.E.2d 203, 206 (Ct. App. 2002) (stating if a statutory term is unclear, the court must interpret the term using its customary meaning within the context of the statute). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.