14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2024 2 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. Adamsgreen2 sentences2005When evidence is admissible to provide this “full presentation” of the offense, there is “no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae.” Adams, 322 S.C. at 122 , 470 S.E.2d at 371 (internal quotations omitted). 2005When evidence is admissible to provide this “full presentation” of the offense, there is “no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae.” Adams, 322 S.C. at 122 , 470 S.E.2d at 371 (internal quotations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Larry W. Mastersgreen2 sentences2024And where evidence is admissible to provide this full presentation of the offense, (t)here is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae." (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Masters, 622 F.2d 83, 86 (4th Cir. 1980))). 2003Moreover, because evidence regarding Spencers theft of the vehicle would have been admissible in a separate trial for armed robbery to furnish[] part of the context of the crime . . . [or] to complete the story of the crime . . . by proving its immediate context or the res gestae . . . [no] reason [would exist] to fragmentize the event under inquiry. State v. Adams , 322 S.C. 114, 122 , 470 S.E.2d 366, 370-71 (1996) (quoting United States v. Masters , 622 F.2d 83, 86 (4th Cir. 1980)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Preslargreen2 sentences2021See State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 474 , 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005) ("When evidence is admissible to provide this 'full presentation' of the offense, there is 'no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae.'" (quoting State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 133 , 606 S.E.2d 508, 517 (Ct. App. 2004))). 2021See State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 474 , 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005) ("When evidence is admissible to provide this 'full presentation' of the offense, there is 'no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae.'" (quoting State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 133 , 606 S.E.2d 508, 517 (Ct. App. 2004))). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Sweatgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 474 , 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005) ("When evidence is admissible to provide this 'full presentation' of the offense, there is 'no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae.'" (quoting State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 133 , 606 S.E.2d 508, 517 (Ct. App. 2004))). 2021See State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 474 , 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005) ("When evidence is admissible to provide this 'full presentation' of the offense, there is 'no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae.'" (quoting State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 133 , 606 S.E.2d 508, 517 (Ct. App. 2004))). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McGeegreen2 sentences2020"When evidence is admissible to provide this full presentation of the offense, there is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae." State v. McGee, 408 S.C. 278, 288 , 758 S.E.2d 730, 735 (Ct. App. 2014) (quoting State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 474 , 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005)). 2020"When evidence is admissible to provide this full presentation of the offense, there is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae." State v. McGee, 408 S.C. 278, 288 , 758 S.E.2d 730, 735 (Ct. App. 2014) (quoting State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 474 , 613 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct. App. 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2020See McGee, 408 S.C. at 288 , 758 S.E.2d at 735 ("When evidence is admissible to provide this full presentation of the offense, there is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae." (quoting Preslar, 364 S.C. at 474 , 613 S.E.2d at 385 )); see also Wilson, 345 S.C. at 6 , 545 S.E.2d at 829 ("If there is any evidence to support the admission of []bad act evidence, the [circuit court]'s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal."). c. 2020See McGee, 408 S.C. at 288 , 758 S.E.2d at 735 ("When evidence is admissible to provide this full presentation of the offense, there is no reason to fragmentize the event under inquiry by suppressing parts of the res gestae." (quoting Preslar, 364 S.C. at 474 , 613 S.E.2d at 385 )); see also Wilson, 345 S.C. at 6 , 545 S.E.2d at 829 ("If there is any evidence to support the admission of []bad act evidence, the [circuit court]'s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal."). c. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Roberts, United States of America v. Charles Williams, United States of America v. Stanley Yelardygreen1 sentence2013As the Court said in United States v. Roberts, 548 F.2d 665, 667 [(6th Cir.1977)], cert. denied, 481 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 2188 , 53 L.Ed.2d 232 [,] “(t)he jury is entitled to know the ‘setting’ of a case. | 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. King
green
2 sentences2020"Under this theory, it is important that the temporal proximity of the prior bad act be closely related to the charged crime." King, 334 S.C. at 513 , 514 S.E.2d at 583 . 2020"Under this theory, it is important that the temporal proximity of the prior bad act be closely related to the charged crime." King, 334 S.C. at 513 , 514 S.E.2d at 583 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jackson v. Denno
green
2 sentences2015In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”). . 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). . 2015In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”). . 378 U.S. 368 , 84 S.Ct. 1774 , 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Giles
green
2 sentences2014State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 122 , 470 S.E.2d 366, 370-71 (1996) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Giles, 407 S.C. 14 , 754 S.E.2d 261 (2014). 2014State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 122 , 470 S.E.2d 366, 370-71 (1996) (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Giles, 407 S.C. 14 , 754 S.E.2d 261 (2014). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Santana v. United States
green
1 sentence2013As the Court said in United States v. Roberts, 548 F.2d 665, 667 [(6th Cir.1977)], cert. denied, 481 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 2188 , 53 L.Ed.2d 232 [,] “(t)he jury is entitled to know the ‘setting’ of a case. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Williams v. United States
green
1 sentence2013As the Court said in United States v. Roberts, 548 F.2d 665, 667 [(6th Cir.1977)], cert. denied, 481 U.S. 920 , 97 S.Ct. 2188 , 53 L.Ed.2d 232 [,] “(t)he jury is entitled to know the ‘setting’ of a case. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Locke v. State
green
2 sentences2001Here, the weapon used, and left behind at the Dodger's store, was also the weapon used in the robbery/murder at Sweetwater Citgo such that testimony concerning the weapon was necessary to a full presentation of the State's case. [9] *481 Accordingly, we find evidence of the subsequent robbery was properly admitted. [10] CONCLUSION Benjamin's remaining issue is affirmed pursuant to SCACR Rule 220(b)(1) and the following authority: Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54 , 533 S.E.2d 324 (2000). 2001Here, the weapon used, and left behind at the Dodger's store, was also the weapon used in the robbery/murder at Sweetwater Citgo such that testimony concerning the weapon was necessary to a full presentation of the State's case. [9] *481 Accordingly, we find evidence of the subsequent robbery was properly admitted. [10] CONCLUSION Benjamin's remaining issue is affirmed pursuant to SCACR Rule 220(b)(1) and the following authority: Locke v. State, 341 S.C. 54 , 533 S.E.2d 324 (2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Franks v. Delaware
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. at 2676 . 1998Id. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. at 2676 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cates v. Hunt Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1969In the fairly recent case of Cates v. Hunt Construction Co., 267 N. C. 560 , 148 S. E. (2d) 604 (1966), the North Carolina Supreme Court had occasion to consider and construe a statutory provision similar to ours. 1969In the fairly recent case of Cates v. Hunt Construction Co., 267 N. C. 560 , 148 S. E. (2d) 604 (1966), the North Carolina Supreme Court had occasion to consider and construe a statutory provision similar to ours. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.