Legal Opinion

State v. Spann

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided February 16, 1999No. 24902PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FINNEY, Chief Justice:

This is an appeal from the denial of a new trial motion based upon after-discovered evidence. We find the trial judge erred in finding certain expert evidence could have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence, and reverse and remand for a new trial.

Appellant was convicted of the 1981 sexual assault, robbery, and murder of Melva Neill, as well as the burglary of her home, and received a death sentence. See State v. Spann, 279 S.C. 399, 308 S.E.2d 518 (1983). In order to prevail in this new trial motion, appellant must show the after-discovered evidence:(1) is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. SpannSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1983
  2. State v. PrinceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1993
  3. State v. ParkerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1967

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. MercerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
  2. Johnson v. CatoeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
  3. State v. WoodsCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2000
  4. State v. HillCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2004
  5. Jamison v. CohenDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2016

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API