Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1/13/1997
State v. Hough
Citations
- 480 S.E.2d 77
- 325 S.C. 88
- 1997 S.C. LEXIS 1
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “The common scheme or plan [exception] concerns more than the commission of two similar crimes; some connection between the crimes is necessary.”
- testimo-ny about defendants purchasing crack with proceeds from sale of items taken in robbery the day after are necessary for full presentation of case and admissible as res gestae
- by introducing prior bad act evidence, state was attempting to demonstrate that because defendant had committed crimes in past, he was doing so on this occasion, precisely type of inference Lyle prohibits
- “One of the accepted bases for the admissibility of evidence of other crimes arises when such evidence furnishes part of the context of the crime or is necessary to a full presentation of the case”
- \One of the accepted bases for the admissibility of evidence of other crimes arises when such evidence furnishes part of the context of the crime or is necessary to a full presentation of the case\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Waller, Finney, Toal, Moore, Burnett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. OwensSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-09-04· cited 72×
- State v. WeaverlingCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1999-10-25· cited 60×
- State v. NelsonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-04-06· cited 55×
- State v. MartucciCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-09-24· cited 54×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-03-08· cited 49×
- State v. WoodCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-12-06· cited 45×
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-06-12· cited 31×
- State v. FordCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1999-03-08· cited 28×
- State v. PerezSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-06-06· cited 24×
- State v. DickersonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-07-03· cited 17×
- State v. BenjaminSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-07-02· cited 14×
- State v. CrimSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1997-08-11· cited 13×
- State v. BerryCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1998-06-29· cited 11×
- State v. GagumCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1997-10-20· cited 9×
- State v. HubnerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-01-10· cited 6×
- State v. BroaddusCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-11-15· cited 5×
- State v. TuffourCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-05-09· cited 4×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- United States v. Larry W. MastersFourth Circuit· 1980-05-22· cited 343×
- State v. AdamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-04-29· cited 113×
- State v. CopelandSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-03-25· cited 68×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-04-08· cited 65×
- State v. BoldenSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1990-10-08· cited 20×
- State v. StokesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1983-06-27· cited 20×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-11-30· cited 18×
- State v. AikenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1996-04-29· cited 12×
- State v. CampbellCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1994-12-28· cited 11×
- State v. JenkinsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-06-10· cited 8×
- State v. HoughCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1995-06-12· cited 4×
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.