## Facts

- Cornelia Whitner, pregnant and with a history of crack cocaine use, gave birth on February 2, 1992.
- The newborn tested positive for cocaine metabolites, attributed to Whitner’s crack cocaine ingestion during the third trimester.
- Whitner pled guilty to criminal child neglect under S.C. Code § 20-7-50 based on causing the baby to be born with cocaine metabolites.
- The circuit court sentenced Whitner to eight years’ imprisonment; she did not directly appeal.
- Whitner later sought post-conviction relief (PCR), arguing the statute did not reach prenatal conduct affecting a fetus and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for not challenging applicability of the statute.
- The PCR court granted relief, concluding the statute did not apply to a fetus and that Whitner pled guilty to a nonexistent offense.
- The State appealed, and the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether a viable fetus is a “child” within the meaning of S.C. Code § 20-7-50, permitting prosecution for prenatal drug use that endangers fetal health.
2. Whether the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because § 20-7-50 did not criminalize the charged conduct (making the offense “nonexistent”).
3. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise or argue that § 20-7-50 might not apply to prenatal conduct.
4. Whether applying § 20-7-50 to prenatal drug use violated due process (fair notice/vagueness) or unconstitutionally burdened privacy interests related to carrying a pregnancy to term.

## Decision

- The South Carolina Supreme Court held that a viable fetus is a “child” under § 20-7-50.
- The court concluded § 20-7-50 encompasses prenatal conduct that endangers a viable fetus’s life or health, including third-trimester crack cocaine ingestion leading to cocaine metabolites in the newborn.
- Because the conduct fell within the statute, the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to accept the guilty plea.
- The court rejected the ineffective assistance claim, reasoning counsel was not deficient for failing to pursue an argument the court found legally incorrect.
- The court held the statute, as applied, provided fair notice and was not unconstitutionally vague.
- The court held the prosecution did not unconstitutionally burden Whitner’s privacy interests or her ability to carry the pregnancy to term.
- The court reversed the PCR ruling and reinstated Whitner’s conviction and sentence.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation seeks legislative intent, reading terms in context of the statute’s purpose and relevant state law.
- For purposes of South Carolina’s criminal child neglect statute, “child” includes a viable fetus.
- A trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea only when the charged offense is nonexistent; a plea is not jurisdictionally defective if the statute covers the conduct as construed by the court.
- Counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a statutory-coverage objection that fails on the merits.
- Due process requires fair notice and nonvagueness; statutory notice may be satisfied where text and related legal recognition of fetal protection make prohibited conduct reasonably foreseeable.
- The State may protect viable fetal life and health through criminal law without, on the court’s analysis, imposing an unconstitutional burden on pregnancy continuation.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated Whitner’s child-neglect conviction by construing “child” in § 20-7-50 to include a viable fetus, holding the trial court had jurisdiction, counsel was not ineffective, and the statute’s application satisfied due process and did not violate constitutional privacy protections.


Whitner v. State, 492 S.E.2d 777 (S.C. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1145 (1998)