Fortune v. South Carolina
| Docket Number | 27932 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 2019 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
3 cases
-
State v. Steadman
... ... 360 S.C. 598, 609, 602 S.E.2d 738, 744 (2004) ("A review ... of a solicitor's closing argument is based upon the ... standard of whether his comments so infected the trial with ... unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of ... due process."); Fortune v. State, 428 S.C. 545, ... 549, 837 S.E.2d 37, 39 (2019) ("To find whether the ... assistant solicitor's comments in closing argument ... violated the defendant's due process rights, we must ... determine whether the comments were improper, and if so, ... whether the ... ...
-
In re Oxner
...prosequi" is not a term of art; it is simply an archaic way to describe a dismissal without prejudice. See Fortune v. State , 428 S.C. 545, 551 n.1, 837 S.E.2d 37, 40 n.1 (2019) (" ‘Nolle prosse’ is a shortened version of the archaic Latin term ‘nolle prosequi.’ In plain, modern English, th......
-
Jarrard v. Martell
...S.E.2d 37, 39 (2019). “Improper comments do not automatically require reversal if they are not prejudicial to the defendant.” Id., 428 S.C. at 550, 837 S.E.2d at 40 (quoting Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338, 503 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1998)). A PCR court must view the alleged impropriety of th......
1 books & journal articles
-
Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
...Rule 3.8 states: "A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate." In Fortune v. State, 428 S.C. 545, 837 S.E.2d 37 (2019), the supreme court found that the solicitor breached his obligation as a minister of justice resulting in a violation o......