Pinckney v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “Further, there is no requirement that the intent element is satisfied only by proving an intent to commit the specific crime that is charged in the indictment as an aggravating circumstance. The only requirement is that there be intent to commit any crime at the time of entry.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• United States v. Cesar Bernel-Aveja
  Fifth Circuit· 2016-12-13· cited 18×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Hughey
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-03-27· cited 68×
• State v. Pinckney
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-03-13· cited 61×
• State v. Austin
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-11-06· cited 40×
• State v. Peterson
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1999-05-24· cited 5×