Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Medlin v. State

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 20, 1981No. 21520Published

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

  1. United States Ex Rel. Elksnis v. GilliganDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
  2. State v. CrossSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1977
  3. Beaver v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1978
  4. Harden v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API