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.
11 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 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. Alekseygreen2 sentences2022"The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution." State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000). 2022"The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution." State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000). | 6 | 9 |
State v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 4 2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 4 | 5 | 6 |
State v. Needsgreen2 sentences2014A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (citation omitted)); Aleksey, 343 S.C. at 28 n.2, 538 S.E.2d at 252 n.2 ("Although settled law disfavors instructing jurors to seek the truth in some contexts because it might be misleading as to the burden of proof, we decline to hold any mention of 'the truth' in jury charges is unconstitutional."); State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 154 , 508 S.E.2d 857, 867 (1998) ("In [State v. Manning, 305 S.C. 413, 415 , 409 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991)], the [c]ourt pointed to the 'i 2014A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (citation omitted)); Aleksey, 343 S.C. at 28 n.2, 538 S.E.2d at 252 n.2 ("Although settled law disfavors instructing jurors to seek the truth in some contexts because it might be misleading as to the burden of proof, we decline to hold any mention of 'the truth' in jury charges is unconstitutional."); State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 154 , 508 S.E.2d 857, 867 (1998) ("In [State v. Manning, 305 S.C. 413, 415 , 409 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991)], the [c]ourt pointed to the 'i | 2 | 2 |
Priest v. Scottgreen2 sentences2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 4 2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 4 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Currygreen2 sentences2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 4 2018PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 4 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Singletongreen2 sentences2015As to the first issue: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); id. ("If, as a whole, the charges are reasonably free from error, isolated por 2015As to the first issue: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27 , 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution."); State v. Simmons, 384 S.C. 145, 178 , 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); id. ("If, as a whole, the charges are reasonably free from error, isolated por | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2015As to the second issue: State v. King, 367 S.C. 131, 136 , 623 S.E.2d 865, 867 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id. ("A court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error which results in prejudice to the defendant."); id. ("Error without prejudice does not warrant reversal."). 2015As to the second issue: State v. King, 367 S.C. 131, 136 , 623 S.E.2d 865, 867 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); id. ("A court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error which results in prejudice to the defendant."); id. ("Error without prejudice does not warrant reversal."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manninggreen2 sentences2014A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (citation omitted)); Aleksey, 343 S.C. at 28 n.2, 538 S.E.2d at 252 n.2 ("Although settled law disfavors instructing jurors to seek the truth in some contexts because it might be misleading as to the burden of proof, we decline to hold any mention of 'the truth' in jury charges is unconstitutional."); State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 154 , 508 S.E.2d 857, 867 (1998) ("In [State v. Manning, 305 S.C. 413, 415 , 409 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991)], the [c]ourt pointed to the 'i 2014A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (citation omitted)); Aleksey, 343 S.C. at 28 n.2, 538 S.E.2d at 252 n.2 ("Although settled law disfavors instructing jurors to seek the truth in some contexts because it might be misleading as to the burden of proof, we decline to hold any mention of 'the truth' in jury charges is unconstitutional."); State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 154 , 508 S.E.2d 857, 867 (1998) ("In [State v. Manning, 305 S.C. 413, 415 , 409 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991)], the [c]ourt pointed to the 'i | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinkardgreen2 sentences2012As to whether the circuit court erred in not allowing Partain to reply to the State's closing argument on the facts: State v. Pinkard , 365 S.C. 541, 543-44 , 617 S.E.2d 397, 398 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the State has the right to make the final closing argument in a criminal case if the defendant presents evidence). 2012As to whether the circuit court erred in not allowing Partain to reply to the State's closing argument on the facts: State v. Pinkard , 365 S.C. 541, 543-44 , 617 S.E.2d 397, 398 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the State has the right to make the final closing argument in a criminal case if the defendant presents evidence). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estelle v. McGuire
green
2 sentences2021"The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution." Id. (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991)). 2000The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. 1 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). | 3 | 2000–2021 |
Boyde v. California
green
2 sentences2000The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. 1 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). 2000The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution. 1 Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370 , 110 S.Ct. 1190 , 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.