Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
29 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Rule 404(b), SCRE; State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). 2005See Rule 404(b), SCRE; State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2021"Further, even though the evidence is clear and convincing and falls within a Lyle exception, it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant." State v. King, 334 S.C. 504, 512 , 514 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1999) (italics added). 2021"Further, even though the evidence is clear and convincing and falls within a Lyle exception, it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant." State v. King, 334 S.C. 504, 512 , 514 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1999) (italics added). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Weaverlinggreen2 sentences2003See Weaverling, 337 S.C. at 468 , 523 S.E.2d at 791 (stating that even if the evidence falls within a Lyle exception, it must be excluded it if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect). 2003See Weaverling, 337 S.C. at 468 , 523 S.E.2d at 791 (stating that even if the evidence falls within a Lyle exception, it must be excluded it if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2023"Further, even though the evidence falls within a Lyle exception, it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant." State v. Brooks, 341 S.C. 57, 62 , 533 S.E.2d 325, 328 (2000). 2023"Further, even though the evidence falls within a Lyle exception, it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant." State v. Brooks, 341 S.C. 57, 62 , 533 S.E.2d 325, 328 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Beckgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Beck, 342 S.C. 129, 136 , 536 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2000) (“After conducting a Lyle analysis and finding evidence both relevant and admissible as a prior bad act, the trial court must conduct a Rule 403, SCRE analysis to determine whether or not the evidence is unduly prejudicial.”). 2005See State v. Beck, 342 S.C. 129, 136 , 536 S.E.2d 679, 683 (2000) (“After conducting a Lyle analysis and finding evidence both relevant and admissible as a prior bad act, the trial court must conduct a Rule 403, SCRE analysis to determine whether or not the evidence is unduly prejudicial.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lylegreen2 sentences2005See Rule 404(b), SCRE; State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). 2005See Rule 404(b), SCRE; State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 , 118 S.E. 803 (1923); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2004Lyle at 416 , 118 S.E. at 807 ; State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990); State v. Pagan, 357 S.C. 132 , 591 S.E.2d 646 (Ct.App.2004); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404(b), SCRE, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). 2004Lyle at 416 , 118 S.E. at 807 ; State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990); State v. Pagan, 357 S.C. 132 , 591 S.E.2d 646 (Ct.App.2004); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404(b), SCRE, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2001State v. King, 334 S.C. 504 , 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999); State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114 , 470 S.E.2d 366 (1996); Rule 403, SCRE. 2001State v. King, 334 S.C. 504 , 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999); State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114 , 470 S.E.2d 366 (1996); Rule 403, SCRE. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Piercegreen2 sentences2023When there is no proof offered to show that a defendant inflicted previous injuries, "testimony regarding [these] injuries is inadmissible[.]" State v. Pierce, 326 S.C. 176, 178 , 485 S.E.2d 913, 914 (1997). 2023When there is no proof offered to show that a defendant inflicted previous injuries, "testimony regarding [these] injuries is inadmissible[.]" State v. Pierce, 326 S.C. 176, 178 , 485 S.E.2d 913, 914 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences1999See State v. King, 334 S.C. 504 , 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999) (“[EJvidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to show criminal propensity or to demonstrate the accused is a bad person.”); Nelson, 331 S.C. at 7-10 , 501 S.E.2d at 719-21 (prohibiting admission of evidence where the evidence “could only invite the jury to infer Petitioner was acting in conformity with this character trait when he committed the crimes with which he was charged”); id. at 6 , 501 S.E.2d at 718-19 (noting that the Lyle rule is “grounded on the policy that character evidence is not admissible ‘for the purposes of proving tha 1999See State v. King, 334 S.C. 504 , 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999) (“[EJvidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to show criminal propensity or to demonstrate the accused is a bad person.”); Nelson, 331 S.C. at 7-10 , 501 S.E.2d at 719-21 (prohibiting admission of evidence where the evidence “could only invite the jury to infer Petitioner was acting in conformity with this character trait when he committed the crimes with which he was charged”); id. at 6 , 501 S.E.2d at 718-19 (noting that the Lyle rule is “grounded on the policy that character evidence is not admissible ‘for the purposes of proving tha | 1 | 1 |
State v. Peakegreen2 sentences1999See State v. King, 334 S.C. 504 , 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999) (“[EJvidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to show criminal propensity or to demonstrate the accused is a bad person.”); Nelson, 331 S.C. at 7-10 , 501 S.E.2d at 719-21 (prohibiting admission of evidence where the evidence “could only invite the jury to infer Petitioner was acting in conformity with this character trait when he committed the crimes with which he was charged”); id. at 6 , 501 S.E.2d at 718-19 (noting that the Lyle rule is “grounded on the policy that character evidence is not admissible ‘for the purposes of proving tha 1999See State v. King, 334 S.C. 504 , 514 S.E.2d 578 (1999) (“[EJvidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to show criminal propensity or to demonstrate the accused is a bad person.”); Nelson, 331 S.C. at 7-10 , 501 S.E.2d at 719-21 (prohibiting admission of evidence where the evidence “could only invite the jury to infer Petitioner was acting in conformity with this character trait when he committed the crimes with which he was charged”); id. at 6 , 501 S.E.2d at 718-19 (noting that the Lyle rule is “grounded on the policy that character evidence is not admissible ‘for the purposes of proving tha | 1 | 1 |
Deboue v. Louisianagreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1 |
State v. Douglasgreen2 sentences1993Id.; see also State v. Douglas, 302 S.C. 508 , 397 S.E. (2d) 98 (1990) (where the Court refused to allow an unrelated bad act to be admitted under a Lyle exception). 1993Id.; see also State v. Douglas, 302 S.C. 508 , 397 S.E. (2d) 98 (1990) (where the Court refused to allow an unrelated bad act to be admitted under a Lyle exception). | 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. Parker
green
2 sentences1996State v. Parker, 315 S.C. 230 , 433 S.E. (2d) 831 (1993). 1996State v. Parker, 315 S.C. 230 , 433 S.E. (2d) 831 (1993). | 3 | 1994–1996 |
State v. Braxton
green
2 sentences2005State v. Braxton, 343 S.C. 629 , 541 S.E.2d 833 (2001). 2005State v. Braxton, 343 S.C. 629 , 541 S.E.2d 833 (2001). | 2 | 2004–2005 |
State v. Tutton
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 324, 580 S.E.2d 186 , 580 S.E.2d at 189. 2008Id. at 324, 580 S.E.2d 186 , 580 S.E.2d at 189. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Pagan
green
2 sentences2004Lyle at 416 , 118 S.E. at 807 ; State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990); State v. Pagan, 357 S.C. 132 , 591 S.E.2d 646 (Ct.App.2004); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404(b), SCRE, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). 2004Lyle at 416 , 118 S.E. at 807 ; State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 (1990); State v. Pagan, 357 S.C. 132 , 591 S.E.2d 646 (Ct.App.2004); see also Anderson v. State, 354 S.C. 431 , 581 S.E.2d 834 (2003) (explaining that Rule 404(b), SCRE, the modern expression of the Lyle rule, excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts offered to prove character of person in order to show action in conformity therewith; the rule creates an exception when testimony is offered to show motive, identity, existence of common scheme or plan, absence of mistake or accident, or intent). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2004“In State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1 , 545 S.E.2d 827 (2001), the Supreme Court articulated the appropriate standard of review on appeal in determining the admissibility of bad act evidence: ‘In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. 2004“In State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1 , 545 S.E.2d 827 (2001), the Supreme Court articulated the appropriate standard of review on appeal in determining the admissibility of bad act evidence: ‘In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Gillian
green
2 sentences2004Rule 403, SCRE; State v. Braxton, 343 S.C. 629 , 541 S.E.2d 833 (2001); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433 , 602 S.E.2d 62 (Ct.App.2004). 2004Rule 403, SCRE; State v. Braxton, 343 S.C. 629 , 541 S.E.2d 833 (2001); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433 , 602 S.E.2d 62 (Ct.App.2004). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2003“To admit prior bad acts regarding drugs under the Lyle exception, there must be a logical relevance between the acts in question and the purpose for introduction.” King , 349 S.C. at 153 , 561 S.E.2d at 645 (citing State v. King , 334 S.C. 504, 512 , 514 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1999)). 2003“To admit prior bad acts regarding drugs under the Lyle exception, there must be a logical relevance between the acts in question and the purpose for introduction.” King , 349 S.C. at 153 , 561 S.E.2d at 645 (citing State v. King , 334 S.C. 504, 512 , 514 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1999)). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Aiken
green
2 sentences1999Cf. State v. Aiken, 322 S.C. 177 , 470 S.E.2d 404 (Ct.App.1996) (holding testimony of a juvenile coconspirator that defendant was involved in a series of robberies constituted clear and convincing evidence for purposes of Lyle exception). 1999Cf. State v. Aiken, 322 S.C. 177 , 470 S.E.2d 404 (Ct.App.1996) (holding testimony of a juvenile coconspirator that defendant was involved in a series of robberies constituted clear and convincing evidence for purposes of Lyle exception). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Rogers
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal 1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Atkins
neutral
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal 1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Henry
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal 1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Schumpert
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal 1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Stokes
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal 1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Rivers
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal 1998See, e.g., State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E.2d 364 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881 , 111 S.Ct. 227 , 112 L.Ed.2d 182 (1990); State v. Rogers, 293 S.C. 505 , 362 S.E.2d 7 (1987), overruled on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502 , 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191 , 304 S.E.2d 814 ; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75 , 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106 , 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542 , 424 S.E.2d 554 (Ct.App.1992). [11] For the purposes of this discussion, we are assuming without so deciding that this evidence invokes the Lyle anal | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Alexander
green
2 sentences1996State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377 , 401 S.E. (2d) 146 (1991); see also Rule 403, SCREvid (recently adopted). 1996State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377 , 401 S.E. (2d) 146 (1991); see also Rule 403, SCREvid (recently adopted). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Rich
green
2 sentences1992Under the fourth Lyle exception, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible if the evidence tends to establish a common scheme or plan involving the commission of two or more crimes which are “so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others.” For example, see State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E. (2d) 365 (1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 277 , 112 L.Ed. (2d) 182 (1990) (in murder prose cution, evidence of prior murder admissible as evidence of plan or scheme due to similarities between the murders); State v. Hallman, 293 S.C. 172 , 379 S.E. (2d) 115 (1 1992Under the fourth Lyle exception, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible if the evidence tends to establish a common scheme or plan involving the commission of two or more crimes which are "so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others." For example, see State v. Bell , 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E. (2d) 365 (1990), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 277 , 112 L.Ed. (2d) 182 (1990) (in murder prosecution *451 evidence of prior murder admissible as evidence of plan or scheme due to similarities between the murders); State v. Hallman , 293 S.C. 172 , 379 S.E. ( | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. NIX & QUARLES green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Hallman
green
2 sentences1992Under the fourth Lyle exception, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible if the evidence tends to establish a common scheme or plan involving the commission of two or more crimes which are “so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others.” For example, see State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E. (2d) 365 (1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 277 , 112 L.Ed. (2d) 182 (1990) (in murder prose cution, evidence of prior murder admissible as evidence of plan or scheme due to similarities between the murders); State v. Hallman, 293 S.C. 172 , 379 S.E. (2d) 115 (1 1992Under the fourth Lyle exception, evidence of other crimes or bad acts is admissible if the evidence tends to establish a common scheme or plan involving the commission of two or more crimes which are "so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others." For example, see State v. Bell , 302 S.C. 18 , 393 S.E. (2d) 365 (1990), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 277 , 112 L.Ed. (2d) 182 (1990) (in murder prosecution *451 evidence of prior murder admissible as evidence of plan or scheme due to similarities between the murders); State v. Hallman , 293 S.C. 172 , 379 S.E. ( | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Richey neutral | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Whitener green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.