Supreme Court of South Carolina· 8/3/1987
State v. Rich
Citations
- 359 S.E.2d 281
- 293 S.C. 172
- 1987 S.C. LEXIS 303
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding admission of fingerprint comparison without proper authentication required reversal of conviction given crucial nature of evidence to the State’s case
- holding, even where evidence may be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule, such will not absolve the offering party from the usual requirements of authentication
- finding the State did not prove the prints on the card belonged to the defendant
- stating the fingerprint expert used an \inked card bearing a name and signature\ from SLED's files to compare to the crime-scene prints
- noting prior to the adoption of the rules of evidence that an exception to the hearsay rule does not \absolve the offering party from the usual requirements of authentication\
- police fingerprint records admissible as either business records or public records
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harwell, Ness, Gregory, Finney, Little-John
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. WhippleSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-07-01· cited 50×
- Bohsancurt v. EisenbergCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2006-02-28· cited 43×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-11-30· cited 18×
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2009-12-21· cited 14×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-08-29· cited 13×
- State v. MoussaSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 2012-08-31· cited 10×
- South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Jennifer M.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2013-06-26· cited 8×
- State v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-05-06· cited 2×
- Bohsancurt v. Tucson City Prosecutor's OfficeCourt of Appeals of Arizona· 2006-02-28
- Pierce v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware· 2022-01-04
- State v. HeywardSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2023-10-05
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.