Supreme Court of South Carolina· 7/9/2014

State v. Hill

Citations

409 S.C. 50
760 S.E.2d 802
2014 WL 3375729
2014 S.C. LEXIS 256

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was good cause for a continuance under the IAD based in part on the complexity and magnitude of the case, which involved a double murder and a first degree burglary
holding admission of a letter into evidence did not amount to reversible error, as the evidence contained in the letter was merely cumulative to other evidence
“[W]e will reverse a circuit court’s decision to grant a continuance under the IAD only when it amounts to an abuse of discretion.”
\The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion.\
\In South Carolina '[t]he grant or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and is reviewable on appeal only when an abuse of discretion appears from the record.'\ (quoting Plyler v. Burns, 373 S.C. 637, 650, 647 S.E.2d 188, 195 (2007))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beatty, Hearn, Kittredge, Pleicones, Toal

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

11 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.