green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 15×
74.0 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 3 distinct cases ·
…error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.
cited 6× by 3 distinct cases ·
…eversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error.
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases ·
…he materiality and prejudicial character of error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
Treatment trajectory · 1987 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1987
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Michael I. Mobley
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
no definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Webb
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
he materiality and prejudicial character of error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Anderson
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
he materiality and prejudicial character of error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Reyes
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case....he materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Pingle
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
no definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Chaplin
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Riebe
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Matter of Fetner
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
eversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Hickson
whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case. no definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Hickson
whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case. no definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Commander
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In The Matter of Vincent N. Way
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wright v. Hiester Construction Co.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
eversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wright v. HIESTER CONST. CO., INC.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted)
eversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Joseph
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
he materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Shannon L. Bone
See State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 537 , 763 S.E.2d 22, 29 (2014) ("The harmless error rule generally provides that an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if it did not contribute to the verdict obtained."); State v. Brown, 344 S.C. 70, 75 , 543 S.E.2d 552, 554-55 (2001) ("Whether an error in the admission of evidence is harmless generally depends upon its materiality in relation to the case as a whole."); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ("Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Key, 2…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Quinterious R. Truesdale
See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court]'s decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Reyes, 432 S.C. 394 , 406, 853 S.E.2d 334 , 340 (2020) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case." (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))); id. ("Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting Mitchell, 286 S.C. at 573 , 336 S.E.2d at 151 )); State v. Sams, 410 S.C. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Shawn Torlif Daily
No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." In re Care & Treatment of Harvey, 355 S.C. 53 , 62–63, 584 S.E.2d 893, 897 (2003) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Pickrell
Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499 , 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) ("[When] a review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed.").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. State
Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial." (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Washington
See Brewer, 411 S.C. at 408-09 , 768 S.E.2d at 660 (holding the error in the admission of evidence in regards to certain charges was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt); State v. Johnson, 298 S.C. 496, 499 , 381 S.E.2d 732, 733 (1989) ("The admission of improper evidence is harmless whe[n] it is merely cumulative to other evidence."); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ("Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Heyward
Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Heyward
Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Washington
See Brewer, 411 S.C. at 408-09 , 768 S.E.2d at 660 (holding the error in the admission of evidence in regards to certain charges was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt); State v. Johnson, 298 S.C. 496, 499 , 381 S.E.2d 732, 733 (1989) ("The admission of improper evidence is harmless whe[n] it is merely cumulative to other evidence."); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ("Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bell
An "[e]rror is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bradley
No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Harris
State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Daise
See State v. Chavis, 412 S.C. 101 , 110 n.7, 771 S.E.2d 336 , 340 n.7 (2015) (stating an error in admitting certain testimony could be deemed harmless because of the existence of overwhelming evidence of guilt); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (finding the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony harmless in light of the other “abundant evidence” of defendant’s guilt).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burke v. Republic Parking System, Inc.
Determining whether prejudice exists “depends on the circumstances” and “the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.” State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 172 , 508 S.E.2d 870, 876 (1998) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brown
Error is harmless when it “could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.” State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Hughes
See State v. Chavis, 412 S.C. 101 , 110 n.7, 771 S.E.2d 336 , 340 n.7 (2015) (stating an error in admitting certain testimony could be deemed harmless because of the existence of overwhelming evidence of guilt); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (finding the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony harmless in light of the other “abundant evidence” of defendant’s guilt).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The City of Greer v. Schulz
No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." (quoting State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985))). 2.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brown
As to whether the trial court erred in admitting GPS records from the electronic monitoring device: Rule 801(c), SCRE ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (providing under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay, evidence is admissible if it is "[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a perso…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Schrader-Falls
See State v. Tapp, 398 S.C. 376, 389 , 728 S.E.2d 468, 475 (2012) ("The key factor for determining whether a trial error constitutes reversible error is 'whether it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" (quoting State v. Charping, 313 S.C. 147, 157 , 437 S.E.2d 88, 94 (1993)); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Williams
Control, 368 S.C. 279, 312-13 , 628 S.E.2d 496, 514 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The [circuit] court's decision will not be reversed on appeal unless it appears the [circuit] court clearly abused its discretion and the objecting party was prejudiced by the decision."); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (indicating error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the trial's outcome); State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5 , 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (finding error is harmless when "guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational co…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Simmons
Even on the merits, we find the circuit court did not err in admitting the testimony of the pediatrician despite the limitations of certain hearsay exceptions to the South Carolina Rules of Evidence: State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (finding improper admission of hearsay testimony to be harmless error where there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony); State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 288 , 625 S.E.2d 641, 646 (2006) ("The improper admission of hearsay is reversible err…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bullock
See State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 27 , 732 S.E.2d 880, 890 (2012) ("An appellate court generally will decline to set aside a conviction due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result."); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ("Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971))); id. (finding the improper admission of hearsay testimony to be harmless error where there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found the defendant gui…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Chavis
(2×)
State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Chavis
(4×)
State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Brewer
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Collins
(2×)
“No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.” State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lee
“The appellate court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the evidence but simply determines whether the trial judge’s ruling is supported by any evidence.” Id. at 23, 671 S.E.2d at 114 (citing State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6 , 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001); Preslar, 364 S.C. at 472 , 613 S.E.2d at 384 ; State v. Mattison, 352 S.C. 577, 583 , 575 S.E.2d 852, 855 (Ct.App.2003)). “ ‘The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.’ ” Id. (quoting Sta…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wylie
(2×)
Competency: State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) ("Error is harmless when it 'could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971))); see also State v. Weik, 356 S.C. 76, 81 , 587 S.E.2d 683, 685 (2002) ("The defendant bears the burden of proving his lack of competence by a preponderance of the evidence, and the trial judge's ruling will be upheld on appeal if supported by the evidence and not against its preponderance."); State v. Bell, 293 S.C. 391, 396 , 360 S.E.2d 706, 709 (1987) ("The…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Judy v. Judy
“No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.” State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Vick
State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 288 , 625 S.E.2d 641, 646 (2006); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 150-51 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Commander
See Rule 103, SCRE (stating that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (holding that error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Haskell
State v. Mitchell , 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Mercer
State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971)) (noting that an error is harmless when it “ ‘could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial’ ”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kirton
“Error is harmless when it ‘could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.’ ” State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93 , 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971)); accord State v. Sherard, 303 S.C. 172, 175 , 399 S.E.2d 595, 596 (1991); Broaddus, 361 S.C. at 542 , 605 S.E.2d at 583 ; State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 380 , 580 S.E.2d 785, 795 (Ct.App.2003); see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (“[S]ome constitutional errors which in the setting of a particular case are so unim…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Whitner
State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573 , 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985).
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant
v.
Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant
22384.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Oct 15, 1985.
Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey of S. C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant., Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Meyers, Lexington, for respondent.
Ness, Gregory, Harwell, Chandler, Finney.
Cited by 137 opinions | Published
Appellant was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct. He alleges prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony against him. We affirm.
The victim told the police her assailant was wearing a dark colored jacket or shirt. She later identified appellant from a photographic line-up.
Appellant’s wife consented to a search of their home. At trial, a police officer who searched appellant’s home testified he was unable to locate a dark jacket. The police officer testified, over objection, that appellant’s wife said appellant owned a dark jacket, but she had washed it and could not locate it. Appellant’s wife did not testify.
This testimony was clearly hearsay and was not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Williams, __ S. C. __, 331 S. E. (2d) 354 (S. C. App. 1985). Hearsay testimony is inadmissible because the adverse party is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. State v. James, 255 S. C. 365, 179 S. E. (2d) 41 (1971). However, reversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error. State v. Brown, __ S. C. __, 334 S. E. (2d) 816 (1985).
Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case. No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case. Error is harmless when it “could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.” State v. Key, 256 S. E. 90, 180 S. E. (2d) 888 (1971).
Here, there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found appellant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony. The victim identified appellant without hesitation in the photographic line-up and at trial. In addition, a State’s witness saw appellant wearing a blue coat the night of the assault. In light of these and other facts appearing in the record, we believe the admission of the hearsay testimony was harmless error.
[*574] Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.
Affirmed.