Legal Opinion

State v. Jackson

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided December 8, 1986No. 22637PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant was tried in his absence and convicted of housebreaking. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Neither appellant nor his counsel was present at trial. The State produced no evidence at trial that appellant had been given notice of his trial date. At the sentencing hearing six months later, appellant moved for a new trial but was not permitted to state his grounds. Appellant argues on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial because the record does not support a finding that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to be present. We agree.

Notice of the term of court for which…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
  3. Ellis v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1976
  4. Brewer v. South Carolina State Highway DepartmentSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1973

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. City of Aiken v. David Michael KoontzCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2006
  2. State v. FaireyCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2007
  3. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1987
  4. In re Ronald S.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 1997
  5. State v. WrappCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API