Supreme Court of South Carolina· 11/30/1992
State v. Smith
Citations
- 424 S.E.2d 496
- 309 S.C. 442
- 1992 S.C. LEXIS 234
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding evidence of defendant’s prior drug use should have been excluded where it was unrelated to the crimes of murder and armed robbery and was not contemporaneous with the victim’s murder
- holding exclusion of defendant’s nephew’s prior inconsistent statement constituted reversible error
- “The [improperly admitted] ‘prior cocaine use’ testimony was so destructive to [the defendant’s] character, hence her credibility, that it cannot be held harmless error or cumulative.”
- admission of testimony about prior drug use which likely destroyed defendant’s credibility, in a case where witness credibility was crucial to jury’s determination of who and what to believe, could not be deemed harmless error
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Chandler, Harwell, Finney, Moore, Toal
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. AdamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-04-29· cited 113×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1996-04-08· cited 65×
- State v. BeckSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-08-21· cited 56×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-03-08· cited 49×
- State v. VickCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-06-25· cited 30×
- State v. CrawfordCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2005-01-31· cited 27×
- State v. MonroeSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 1998-06-11· cited 27×
- State v. HoughSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1997-01-13· cited 23×
- Anderson v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2003-05-27· cited 18×
- State v. McIntoshSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2004-04-19· cited 17×
- State v. DickersonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-07-03· cited 17×
- 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. BroaddusCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-11-15· cited 5×
- State v. HoughCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1995-06-12· cited 4×
- In Re Richard D.Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-05-06· cited 4×
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. TorrenceSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-05-20· cited 352×
- People v. CzemerynskiSupreme Court of Colorado· 1990-02-12· cited 198×
- Stewart v. FloridaSupreme Court· 1983-04-18· cited 179×
- State v. CopelandSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1982-11-10· cited 134×
- Callis v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1985-01-14· cited 115×
- State v. SimsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-09-24· cited 97×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1991-10-07· cited 83×
- State v. BellSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1990-02-26· cited 81×
- State v. ColemanSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1990-02-20· cited 25×
- State v. DingleSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1983-07-28· cited 23×
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1966-12-12· cited 23×
- Welch v. WhitakerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1984-06-22· cited 22×
- State v. BoldenSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1990-10-08· cited 20×
- State v. NIX & QUARLESCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1986-01-14· cited 20×
- State v. BrooksSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1959-11-09· cited 18×
- Strickland v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas· 1990-01-30· cited 18×
- State v. NathariCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 1990-04-30· cited 14×
- State v. RichSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1987-08-03· cited 13×
- State v. OutlawSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1992-02-10· cited 9×
- State v. MillerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1972-11-21· cited 9×
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.