Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 6/10/2002

State v. Garrett

Citations

  • 567 S.E.2d 523
  • 350 S.C. 613
  • 2002 S.C. App. LEXIS 98

How courts have described this case

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

  • providing that co- defendants are not \entitled to separate trials as a matter of right\
  • holding in a prior ruling in the same case, that because the statement was redacted to omit mention of Garrett by name and the judge issued a curative instruction, the statement did not violate the confrontation clause
  • stating generally, the grant or refusal of a new trial is within the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion
  • stating generally the grant or refusal of a new trial is within the trial judge’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal without a clear abuse of that discretion
  • \[A]buse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law.\
  • \[T]he grant or refusal of a new trial is within the trial [court's] discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal without a clear abuse of that discretion.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Hearn, Huff, Howard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 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.