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.
16 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2013We agree. “ ‘The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies.’ ” Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 71 , 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006) (quoting Dawkins, 346 S.C. at 156 , 551 S.E.2d at 262 ). 2013We agree. “ ‘The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies.’ ” Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 71 , 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006) (quoting Dawkins, 346 S.C. at 156 , 551 S.E.2d at 262 ). | 2 | 5 |
Huggler v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Huggler v. State, 360 S.C. 627 , 602 S.E.2d 753 (2004); State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73 , 602 S.E.2d 786 (Ct.App.2004); see also Rule 802, SCRE (“Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of this State or by statute.”); Rule 803, SCRE (setting out exceptions to the hearsay rule). 2005See Huggler v. State, 360 S.C. 627 , 602 S.E.2d 753 (2004); State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73 , 602 S.E.2d 786 (Ct.App.2004); see also Rule 802, SCRE (“Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of this State or by statute.”); Rule 803, SCRE (setting out exceptions to the hearsay rule). | 2 | 2 |
Jolly v. Stategreen2 sentences2006"The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies." Dawkins v. State, 346 S.C. 151, 156 , 551 S.E.2d 260, 262 (2001) (citing Jolly v. State, 314 S.C. 17, 20 , 443 S.E.2d 566, 568 (1994)). 2006"The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies." Dawkins v. State, 346 S.C. 151, 156 , 551 S.E.2d 260, 262 (2001) (citing Jolly v. State, 314 S.C. 17, 20 , 443 S.E.2d 566, 568 (1994)). | 1 | 5 |
Simpkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2004“The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies.” Simpkins v. State, 303 S.C. 364, 367 , 401 S.E.2d 142, 143 (1991); Rule 803, SCRE. 2004“The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies.” Simpkins v. State, 303 S.C. 364, 367 , 401 S.E.2d 142, 143 (1991); Rule 803, SCRE. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2011See Rule 802, SCRE; State v. Lewis, 293 S.C. 107, 110 , 359 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1987). 2011See Rule 802, SCRE; State v. Lewis, 293 S.C. 107, 110 , 359 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1987). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vickgreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gastergreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parvingreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out of court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies."); Rule 803(1), SCRE (providing a present sense impression exception to the rule against hearsay | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013We agree. “ ‘The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies.’ ” Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 71 , 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006) (quoting Dawkins, 346 S.C. at 156 , 551 S.E.2d at 262 ). 2013We agree. “ ‘The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies.’ ” Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 71 , 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006) (quoting Dawkins, 346 S.C. at 156 , 551 S.E.2d at 262 ). | 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. Weaver
green
2 sentences2005See Huggler v. State, 360 S.C. 627 , 602 S.E.2d 753 (2004); State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73 , 602 S.E.2d 786 (Ct.App.2004); see also Rule 802, SCRE (“Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of this State or by statute.”); Rule 803, SCRE (setting out exceptions to the hearsay rule). 2005See Huggler v. State, 360 S.C. 627 , 602 S.E.2d 753 (2004); State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73 , 602 S.E.2d 786 (Ct.App.2004); see also Rule 802, SCRE (“Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of this State or by statute.”); Rule 803, SCRE (setting out exceptions to the hearsay rule). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Smith v. State
green
2 sentences2013However, [ i]n a CSC case, the testimony of a witness regarding the Victim’s out-of-court statement is not hearsay when: “The declarant testifies at the trial ... and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... consistent with the declarant’s testimony in a criminal sexual conduct case or attempted criminal sexual conduct case where the declarant is the alleged Victim and the statement is limited to the time and place of the incident.” Smith, 386 S.C. at 566 , 689 S.E.2d at 631 -32 (quoting Rule 801(d)(1)(D), SCRE). 2013However, [ i]n a CSC case, the testimony of a witness regarding the Victim’s out-of-court statement is not hearsay when: “The declarant testifies at the trial ... and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is ... consistent with the declarant’s testimony in a criminal sexual conduct case or attempted criminal sexual conduct case where the declarant is the alleged Victim and the statement is limited to the time and place of the incident.” Smith, 386 S.C. at 566 , 689 S.E.2d at 631 -32 (quoting Rule 801(d)(1)(D), SCRE). | 1 | 2013–2013 |