Skip to main content

Burgess v. State

Citations

  • 495 S.E.2d 445
  • 329 S.C. 88
  • 1998 S.C. LEXIS 7

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding it is improper “pitting” to ask a witness “to comment on the truthfulness ... of an adverse witness”
  • holding the petitioner was not prejudiced by improper witness pitting in light of the other evidence presented in the case
  • allowing admission of clothes evidence despite defects in chain of custody, especially where there was no forensic evidence related to the clothes
  • “No matter how a question is worded, anytime a solicitor asks a defendant to com ment on the truthfulness or explain the testimony of an adverse witness,” the questioning is argumentative and improper
  • \[I]mproper pitting constitutes reversible error only if the accused is unfairly prejudiced.\
  • cannot ask defendant whether he thinks other witnesses were lying

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Waller, Finney, Toal, Moore, Burnett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.