Tate v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding it is the body of the indictment that is controlling
• if body of indictment specifically states essential elements of crime and is otherwise free from defect, defect in caption will not cause it to be invalid
• “It is the body of the indictment rather than the caption that is important. If the body specifically states the essential elements of the crime and is otherwise free from defect, defect in the caption will not cause it to be invalid.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Means
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-02-06· cited 16×
• State v. Wright
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-04-14· cited 9×
• Cohen v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2003-06-02· cited 6×
• State v. McCloud
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2003-04-14· cited 4×
• State v. Knuckles
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2002-01-28· cited 4×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Cherry v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-12-04· cited 215×
• Johnson v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1997-01-27· cited 82×
• State v. Bultron
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 1995-05-01· cited 40×
• State v. Griffin
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1981-11-24· cited 29×
• State v. Marshall & Brown-Sidorowicz, P.A.
  Court of Appeals of Kansas· 1978-04-14· cited 20×
• Pringle v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1986-01-15· cited 15×
• Anderson v. State
  Court of Appeals of South Carolina· 2000-02-07· cited 10×
• State v. Grim
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2000-06-12· cited 9×