30 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pickensgreen2 sentences2018"To be harmless, the record must establish the reference to the defendant's right to silence was a single reference, which was not repeated or alluded to; the solicitor did not tie the defendant's silence directly to his exculpatory story; the exculpatory story was totally implausible; and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming." Id. at 531 , 466 S.E.2d at 366 . "[W]here a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. 2018"To be harmless, the record must establish the reference to the defendant's right to silence was a single reference, which was not repeated or alluded to; the solicitor did not tie the defendant's silence directly to his exculpatory story; the exculpatory story was totally implausible; and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming." Id. at 531 , 466 S.E.2d at 366 . "[W]here a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. | 6 | 14 |
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2022"Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. (quoting State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006)). "'Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 334 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 319 (2002). 2022"Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. (quoting State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006)). "'Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 334 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 319 (2002). | 4 | 9 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2021See State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."). 2. 2021See State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."). 2. | 4 | 5 |
City of Newberry v. Newberry Electric Cooperative, Inc.green2 sentences2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 2006State v. Fletcher, 363 S.C. 221 , 609 S.E.2d 572 (Ct.App.2005); Thompson , 352 S.C. at 562, 575 S.E.2d at 83. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2021Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("[When] a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."). 2021Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("[When] a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Mizzellgreen2 sentences2022"Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. (quoting State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006)). "'Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 334 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 319 (2002). 2022"Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. (quoting State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006)). "'Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 334 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 319 (2002). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pagangreen2 sentences2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis 2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006) ("[A]ppellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result."); State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."); 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. 2016See State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006) ("[A]ppellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result."); State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."); 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. | 2 | 2 |
Arnold v. Stategreen2 sentences2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 | 1 | 6 |
State v. Byersgreen2 sentences2022"Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed." Id. (quoting State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006)). "'Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt' means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 334 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 319 (2002). 2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis | 1 | 2 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2022In Green, the defendant asserted the trial court erred by admitting into evidence Facebook messages allegedly between his codefendant and the victim because they were not properly authenticated. 427 S.C. at 227, 229 , 830 S.E.2d at 712, 714 . 2022In Green, the defendant asserted the trial court erred by admitting into evidence Facebook messages allegedly between his codefendant and the victim because they were not properly authenticated. 427 S.C. at 227, 229 , 830 S.E.2d at 712, 714 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Daisegreen2 sentences2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis 2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis 2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case."); id. ("Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial."); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."); State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 27-28 , 732 S.E.2d 880, 890 (2012) ("In determining harmless error regarding any issue of witness credibility, we will consider the importance of the witness's testimo 2019See State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case."); id. ("Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial."); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."); State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 27-28 , 732 S.E.2d 880, 890 (2012) ("In determining harmless error regarding any issue of witness credibility, we will consider the importance of the witness's testimo | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fossickgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case."); id. ("Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial."); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."); State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 27-28 , 732 S.E.2d 880, 890 (2012) ("In determining harmless error regarding any issue of witness credibility, we will consider the importance of the witness's testimo 2019See State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 562 , 575 S.E.2d 77, 83 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case."); id. ("Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial."); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."); State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 27-28 , 732 S.E.2d 880, 890 (2012) ("In determining harmless error regarding any issue of witness credibility, we will consider the importance of the witness's testimo | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kelleygreen2 sentences2008“When guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, [the appellate court] will not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 179 , 460 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1995); accord; State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (citing State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6 , 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984)). 2008“When guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, [the appellate court] will not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 179 , 460 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1995); accord; State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (citing State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6 , 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Yates v. Evattgreen2 sentences2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 | 1 | 1 |
Lowry v. Stategreen2 sentences2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baileygreen2 sentences2008“When guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, [the appellate court] will not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 179 , 460 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1995); accord; State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (citing State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6 , 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984)). 2008“When guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, [the appellate court] will not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 179 , 460 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1995); accord; State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (citing State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6 , 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Livingstongreen2 sentences2008“When guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, [the appellate court] will not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 179 , 460 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1995); accord; State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (citing State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6 , 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984)). 2008“When guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached, [the appellate court] will not set aside a conviction because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 179 , 460 S.E.2d 368, 371 (1995); accord; State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518 , 633 S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (citing State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6 , 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 2008“Where a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Thompson, 352 S.C. at 562 , 575 S.E.2d at 83 (citing State v. Pickens, 320 S.C. 528, 530-531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 161 , 561 S.E.2d 640, 650 (Ct.App.2002)); see Mizzell, 349 S.C. at 334 , 563 S.E.2d at 319 (“In determining whether an error is harmless, ‘the reviewing *345 court must review the entire record to determine what effect the error had on the verdict.’ ”) (quoting State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478, 484 , 445 S.E.2d 6 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keygreen2 sentences2006State v. Key , 256 S.C. 90, 93-94 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 889-90 (1971). [W]here a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed. State v. Pickens , 320 S.C. 528, 531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996). 2006State v. Key , 256 S.C. 90, 93-94 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 889-90 (1971). [W]here a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed. State v. Pickens , 320 S.C. 528, 531 , 466 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences2007State v. Pickens , 320 S.C. 528 , 466 S.E.2d 364 (1996); State v. Fletcher , 363 S.C. 221 , 609 S.E.2d 572 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. King , 349 S.C. 142 , 561 S.E.2d 640 (Ct. App. 2002). 2007State v. Pickens , 320 S.C. 528 , 466 S.E.2d 364 (1996); State v. Fletcher , 363 S.C. 221 , 609 S.E.2d 572 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. King , 349 S.C. 142 , 561 S.E.2d 640 (Ct. App. 2002). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Truesdale
green
2 sentences2004Issue 2: State v. Truesdale , 285 S.C. 13 , 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984) (where review of the entire record establishes error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction will not be overturned for a Doyle violation), revd in part on other grounds , Truesdale v. Aiken , 480 U.S. 527 , 107 S.Ct. 1394 , 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). 2004Issue 2: State v. Truesdale , 285 S.C. 13 , 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984) (where review of the entire record establishes error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction will not be overturned for a Doyle violation), revd in part on other grounds , Truesdale v. Aiken , 480 U.S. 527 , 107 S.Ct. 1394 , 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). | 2 | 1996–2004 |
State v. Chavis
green
2 sentences2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis 2020See State v. Brown, 424 S.C. 479, 493 , 818 S.E.2d 735, 743 (2018) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212 , 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006))); id. ("Where 'guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached,' an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is considered harmless." (quoting State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 447 , 710 S.E.2d 55, 60 (2011))); id. ("Where a review of the entire record establis | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Truesdale v. Aiken
green
2 sentences2004Issue 2: State v. Truesdale , 285 S.C. 13 , 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984) (where review of the entire record establishes error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction will not be overturned for a Doyle violation), revd in part on other grounds , Truesdale v. Aiken , 480 U.S. 527 , 107 S.Ct. 1394 , 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). 2004Issue 2: State v. Truesdale , 285 S.C. 13 , 328 S.E.2d 53 (1984) (where review of the entire record establishes error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction will not be overturned for a Doyle violation), revd in part on other grounds , Truesdale v. Aiken , 480 U.S. 527 , 107 S.Ct. 1394 , 94 L.Ed.2d 539 (1987). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Primus
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 531 , 466 S.E.2d at 366 ; State v. Primus, 341 S.C. 592 , 535 S.E.2d 152 (Ct.App.2000), cert. granted. “[W]here a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Pickens, 320 S.C. at 531 , 466 S.E.2d at 366 . 2002Id. at 531 , 466 S.E.2d at 366 ; State v. Primus, 341 S.C. 592 , 535 S.E.2d 152 (Ct.App.2000), cert. granted. “[W]here a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.” Pickens, 320 S.C. at 531 , 466 S.E.2d at 366 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.