Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In the Interest of Kevin R.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided August 6, 2014No. Appellate Case 2012-212655; 27430Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Justice PLEICONES:

I concur in part and dissent in part. First, I agree that our decision in Stephen W.,16 is dispositive of the only issue properly before this Court: whether a juvenile is entitled to a jury trial in a family court delinquency proceeding. To the extent that the majority addresses matters raised only by the amicus curiae, I dissent. See Rule 213 SCACR. I also disagree with any suggestion that a juvenile’s “immutable right to a jury trial” requires the Court sua sponte create a right allowing the juvenile to waive his case from family court to general sessions. The purported…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In re Stephen W.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API