Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Miller

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided November 10, 1985No. 22410Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNess, Acting Chief Justice

I concur in part with the result reached by the majority, but on a different ground. The majority relies upon State v. Dasher, 278 S. C. 395, 297 S. E. (2d) 414 (1982), in which I dissented. I adhere to my views expressed in Dasher, as modified here.

The majority summarily states in a footnote that defense counsel’s post verdict motion was improper, but declines to address the issue on the basis it is not properly raised. I disagree. Appellant’s exceptions 2, 4 and 6 clearly question the trial judge’s authority to grant a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The State’s argument as to these…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. DasherSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
  2. State v. DawkinsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1890
  3. State v. RafeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1900
  4. State v. LynnSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1922
  5. State v. MillerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1953

3 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