Supreme Court of South Carolina· 4/22/1996

State v. Pauling

Citations

470 S.E.2d 106
322 S.C. 95
1996 S.C. LEXIS 60

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “[h]aving denied the trial judge an opportunity to cure any alleged error by failing to contemporaneously object ..., Appellant is procedurally barred from raising these issues for the first time on appeal”
stating that “[hjaving denied the trial judge an opportunity to cure any alleged error by failing to contemporaneously object .. ., Appellant is procedurally barred from raising these issues for the first time on appeal”
“Having denied the trial judge an opportunity to cure any alleged error by failing to contemporaneously object ..., Appellant is proeedurally barred from raising these issues for the first time on appeal.”
if jury asks for further explanation of the law after indicating deadlock, the requirements of § 14-7-1330 are met
if jury asks for further explanation of the law after indicating deadlock, the requirements of § 14-7-1330 are met
\It is not coercion to charge that the failure to reach a verdict will require a new trial at additional expense.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Burnett, Toal, Moore, Waller, Gregory

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 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.