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.
6 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2026 4 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. Johnsongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w 2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hawkinsred2 sentences2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w 2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cockerhamgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w 2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sweetgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w 2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blackgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10 , 23 n.5, 732 S.E.2d 880 , 888 n.5 (2012) ("This [c]ourt has stated that the moral turpitude test is no longer relevant under a Rule 609 analysis."); but see generally Baddourah v. McMaster, 433 S.C. 89 , 856 S.E.2d 561 (2021) (analyzing "crime of moral turpitude" in relation to suspension from office). 2022See State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10 , 23 n.5, 732 S.E.2d 880 , 888 n.5 (2012) ("This [c]ourt has stated that the moral turpitude test is no longer relevant under a Rule 609 analysis."); but see generally Baddourah v. McMaster, 433 S.C. 89 , 856 S.E.2d 561 (2021) (analyzing "crime of moral turpitude" in relation to suspension from office). | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 432 , 527 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2000) (”[T]he new evidentiary rule removes the necessity of determining whether a crime is one of moral turpitude."). . 2012See, e.g., Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 432 , 527 S.E.2d 98, 100 (2000) (”[T]he new evidentiary rule removes the necessity of determining whether a crime is one of moral turpitude."). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Baddourah v. McMastergreen2 sentences2022See State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10 , 23 n.5, 732 S.E.2d 880 , 888 n.5 (2012) ("This [c]ourt has stated that the moral turpitude test is no longer relevant under a Rule 609 analysis."); but see generally Baddourah v. McMaster, 433 S.C. 89 , 856 S.E.2d 561 (2021) (analyzing "crime of moral turpitude" in relation to suspension from office). 2022See State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10 , 23 n.5, 732 S.E.2d 880 , 888 n.5 (2012) ("This [c]ourt has stated that the moral turpitude test is no longer relevant under a Rule 609 analysis."); but see generally Baddourah v. McMaster, 433 S.C. 89 , 856 S.E.2d 561 (2021) (analyzing "crime of moral turpitude" in relation to suspension from office). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences2021The Tennessee court's definition from Webster's "provided a lasting definition that could be and often was quoted in cases necessitating a moral turpitude analysis," and "it was [eventually] incorporated almost verbatim into law treatises." Id. at 1022 n.155. 2021The Tennessee court's definition from Webster's "provided a lasting definition that could be and often was quoted in cases necessitating a moral turpitude analysis," and "it was [eventually] incorporated almost verbatim into law treatises." Id. at 1022 n.155. 5 In 45 B.C., the Roman philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero, in his multi-volume work, De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum (i.e., On the Ends of Good and Evil), equated virtue with moral excellency and described moral turpitude as a most undesirable trait: "[A]s virtue or moral excellency is for itself to be valued and desired, so vice or moral t | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Torrence
green
2 sentences2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w 2026See State v. Sweet, 342 S.C. 342, 348 , 536 S.E.2d 91, 94 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Where the solicitor refers to certain evidence as uncontradicted and 1 See State v. Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 58 , 609 S.E.2d 520, 523 (2005) ("Since the adoption of Rule 609 [, SCRE], the moral turpitude standard is no longer the proper test for determining the admission of remote prior convictions."). 2 "[E]vidence of a conviction more than [ten] years old . . . is not admissible unless the proponent gives to the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to provide the adverse party w | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Green v. Hewett
green
1 sentence2022Further, the rule provides for a different standard for balancing probative value and prejudicial effect for an accused who is a witness." (emphases added)); id. ("The former case law did not set forth a time limit on the use of convictions for impeachment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.