Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

The STATE v. Worthy

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided January 30, 1962No. 17865Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLegge, Justice

Otherwise in full accord with the leading opinion, by Moss, J., I cannot escape the conclusion that the Trial Judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by defendant’s counsel, with regard to their unrestricted power to recommend mercy, and that because of such error a new trial should be ordered.

*470Review of the legislative enactments hereinafter referred to, and of the decisions of this court interpreting them discloses substantial change, over a long period of years, in public policy with respect to enforcement of the death penalty in cases of murder, rape, arson, and burglary.

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. State v. KingSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1930
  2. State v. KimbroughSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1948
  3. State v. AdamsSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1904
  4. State v. WhitenerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955
  5. State v. ChasteenSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1955

8 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