South Carolina Court Reinstated Criminal Sexual Conduct Case
The state appellate court overturned a trial court's dismissal of charges against a defendant in a sexual misconduct case.
Updated on Sept. 30, 2026 in Sex Crimes
Live Poll
Do you believe administrative court delays undermine the fairness of the judicial process?
The South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision to dismiss charges of criminal sexual conduct with minors against a defendant. The court determined that the trial judge incorrectly weighed delays caused by the difficulty in securing a Spanish interpreter against the state.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies how courts in South Carolina must assess the right to a speedy trial, particularly when administrative challenges like interpreter shortages occur. It establishes that such delays do not automatically favor a dismissal if the state acted in good faith.
The appellate court reversed a dismissal of charges in the case of State v. Sandoval, case number 011-043-26. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings after the court reviewed the delay under the Barker v. Wingo framework.
The players
South Carolina Court of Appeals
This is the intermediate appellate court in the South Carolina judicial system responsible for reviewing decisions made by lower trial courts.
The details
After the defendant's February 2020 trial ended in a mistrial, the judicial system faced significant disruptions, including court closures and administrative difficulties in finding a Spanish interpreter. The appellate court found no evidence of deliberate delay by the state or specific harm to the defendant's case during the nearly three-year interim.
Timeline
February 2020: The initial jury trial resulted in a mistrial.
July 2022: The defendant formally asserted his right to a speedy trial.
Legal Context
The ruling highlights the continued application of the four-factor test from Barker v. Wingo in determining the constitutionality of trial delays. This decision aligns with the state's ongoing efforts to balance administrative challenges with the legal protections afforded to defendants.
This decision ensures that criminal prosecutions for serious offenses remain active despite administrative delays in the court system. Residents should be aware that the state remains committed to pursuing these cases as the judiciary clears its post-pandemic backlog.
The takeaway
This case illustrates the high bar defendants must meet to prove that a delay constitutes a violation of their constitutional right to a speedy trial. Procedural hurdles, such as securing language interpreters, are generally not viewed as evidence of bad faith by the state.
Further reading
For additional context on legal developments in the region, explore South Carolina Sex Crimes.
Source note: This article includes information reported by South Carolina Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Do you believe administrative court delays undermine the fairness of the judicial process?
