Medlin v. State
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Littlejohn and Gregory, Justices
(concurring and dissenting) :
We concur in the result of the majority opinion. We dissent from that part of the opinion which in effect adopts a rule of procedure permitting a trial judge to participate along with state’s counsel, defense counsel, and the defendant in the plea-bargaining process.
The impact of today’s ruling is not fully appreciated without reading in connection with it the opinion in the case of Harden v. State of South Carolina, S. C., 277 S. E. (2d) *544692 (1981). In Harden only four members of the court participated. Two would have brought…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Elksnis v. GilliganDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- State v. CrossSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1977
- Beaver v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
- Harden v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981