Supreme Court of South Carolina· 6/11/2007
State v. Sweet
Citations
- 647 S.E.2d 202
- 374 S.C. 1
- 2007 S.C. LEXIS 229
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding \what was done with the evidence between the taking and the analysis must not be left to conjecture\
- holding chemist’s report inadmissible in absence of evidence the confidential informant procured drugs from defendant
- providing that for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, a party \must [make] a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court\
- stating \who acquired the evidence and what was done with the evidence between the taking and the analysis must not be left to conjecture\
- \To properly preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court.\
- \To properly preserve an issue for review there must be a contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court.\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Toal, Moore, Waller, Burnett, Pleicones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
18 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. LylesCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-06-06· cited 58×
- State v. HerringSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2009-12-21· cited 57×
- State v. MartucciCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-09-24· cited 54×
- State v. HatcherSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2011-03-21· cited 41×
- State v. KirtonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-12-17· cited 32×
- State v. GeerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2010-11-24· cited 22×
- State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2011-12-14· cited 22×
- State v. WhitnerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2008-09-24· cited 6×
- State v. PulleySupreme Court of South Carolina· 2018-06-06· cited 6×
- State v. PopeCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2014-08-20· cited 6×
- State v. TrappCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2017-05-24· cited 3×
- State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2012-05-23· cited 2×
- State v. HatcherCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2009-08-05· cited 1×
- State v. ValentineSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2010-02-08
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2021-12-08
- State v. Guadalupe Guzman MoralesSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2023-05-31
- James L. Carrier v. StateCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2023-10-04
- State v. Joseph M. SwaringenCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2025-04-23
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1999-07-26· cited 1,327×
- Wilder Corp. v. WilkeSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1998-03-09· cited 665×
- State v. PaganSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-06-19· cited 319×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2005-02-22· cited 88×
- State v. StanleySupreme Court of South Carolina· 2005-06-27· cited 61×
- Benton Ex Rel. Benton v. PellumSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1957-11-13· cited 53×
- State v. CarterSupreme Court of South Carolina· 2001-03-26· cited 30×
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-01-16· cited 27×
- State v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2004-06-24· cited 23×
- State v. ChisolmCourt of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-06-02· cited 6×
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.