State v. Hart

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he physical characteristics of a person may ... constitute relevant evidence in a criminal prosecution”
• The exhibition of physical characteristics does not implicate a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination because physical characteristics are nontestimonial.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Pinkard
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-06-27· cited 4×
• State v. Frasier
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-07-03

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Delaware v. Van Arsdall
  Supreme Court· 1986-04-07· cited 7,102×
• Schmerber v. California
  Supreme Court· 1966-06-20· cited 6,067×
• Wardius v. Oregon
  Supreme Court· 1973-06-11· cited 827×
• Olden v. Kentucky
  Supreme Court· 1988-12-12· cited 592×
• State v. Martin
  Supreme Court of Louisiana· 1988-01-18· cited 21×
• State v. Norris
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1979-02-13· cited 13×
• State v. Hart
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1991-03-11· cited 1×