ee ‘STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, ) }) INTHE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS COUNTY OF GREENVILLE) a3 The State, ) 48 ) ae Motion to Quash indictment #8 a ) Case Ns 2018-68-23-24664-F a8 ie ) William D. Lewis, ie ) Defendant. ) ‘William D. Lewis, by and through his undersigned attomey, moves to Quash the Indictment inthis matter based upon the following grounds 1. Misconduct in Office isnot an indictable offense under the Common Law of the State ‘of South Carolina. South Carolina Courts have never recognized the Common Law erime of misconduct in office. State. Sellers, 41 S.C.L, 368, 371 (1854)I was especially against those ‘acts of misconduct, fom which no particular individual can allege special damage to himself, thatthe Act of 1829 was intended to guard by subjecting pubic offices to indictment”) State Hess, 279 SC. 14, 19,301 S24 547,550 (1983) (“Appellant coneety notes that South Carolina has no cass applying the common law of misconduct in office"). As the Act of 1829, now S. C, Code § 81-80, rete crime of misconduct inofice, such enactment would have been in contravention of the common lw if such common law crime ever existe, and therefore would have repealed any common law rime of misconduct office. In fat the State ‘by implication has recopnzed this by, i a separate indictment, indictng this Defendant fora Violation ofS. C. Code § 1-80 2. The charge of Misconduct Office salleged in Count Ones over broad. This 1Ww a Oy Court alleges Mr. Lewis commited Misconduct in Ofc by “misuse public resources and abuse the power end authority fis office forthe comant purpose of parsing or aitating en adulterous rationshipin reach of his tes of good faith and acount othe public” ‘The inictment lst allege in what manner “public resources” were wed to facilitate an adulterous afi. The Count als is vague as to whether the violation ofthe common aw rime of Misconduct in fee the “misuse of public resources," th “altro ai” othe combimation ofthe two. Thentment farther fils allege hw sch an afi establishes the flue of Me. Les to “property nd fii discharge theo his publi office imposed on him bylaw” Tote exten the fndicment alleges an act of moa fling, nd no uneying common Jaw rime, suc acs not scent o poset forthe common ln offense of Misconduct in Office. 3. The charge of Misconduct in Offic aso Count ilo allege what common law blietion Mi. Lens isto ve violated in allegedly fling to propery complete background check on Denick Pendergrss. Tote extent that the indictment legs violation of tate lw, ‘heinitment fils to alegs wha sate aw Mr, Lewis vile in legal filing to complete a ‘background chock on Deck Pendergrass, Te indictment fils to alleged how hs aloo act Adin ft violate a dy of good faith and accountability tthe publi. 4 The charge of Miscondut ia Ofc aso Count il to llege wht assets Mr. Levis is logs to have wilfully disposed nor in what manner they were impropedy disposed of. Nor does the Coun allege how suc actions voted duty of god fut nd accoutbiiy tothe ‘ulin violation of any common aw ty imposed yon in, 5. The charge of Miscondt in Office as o Count fils o allege which employe was “unqualified nor does it allege how such an action breached his duty to uphold any law of the 2State of South Carolina nor what lw was not upheld. The Count farther fils allege how such actions violated his duty of good fith and sccoustabilty othe publi 6. The charge of Misconduct in Office a o Count Silt allege the specific acts, statements, dates and times in which Me Levis “willfully abused the power and authority of is oftce to oppress and intimidate his exployees.” 17. The charge of Misconduct in Office a o Count 6 Bt allege a violation of eny common I duty asin South Carona «deputy sherif serves tthe sole pleasure of the sec. S.C. Code § 23-13-10. Thus, assuming the allegations in the indictment tobe tru, the count seeks io make criminal thet which the South Carona Code gave Me. Lewis the ight odo. 8. The Indictment forthe common law charge of Misconduct in Ofe should be quashed asthe common law crime is overy vague and without the specificity equred bythe De Process Cause of Article, § 3 of the Consttton ofthe State of South Carona andthe Fourteenth Amendment to the Consttion ofthe United Sats of Amica. The vaguenes of this common law crimes stated by the mamerous cous inthis nditment all of which the ‘ndctment contends would constitute misconduct in office, but the majority of which would not and could constitute an independent rime, 9. This Indictment shouldbe quashed on the further ground that South Caotina Code § 81-80 supercses end replaces the common law crime of Misconduct in Office even if such time exists in South Carolina. As the code section isthe more specific xe, under the ‘rincpls of lent, the only charges that could be placed against Mr. Lewis is South Carolina (Code § 81-80. Under the principle ofthe Double Jeopardy cause of Article, § 12 of the Constitution of the Stat of South Carolin and the Fith Amendment ofthe Constition ofthe ‘United States of America as applied tothe Sats trough the ourtsnth Amendment, Mr Levis 3