State v. Chasteen
| Decision Date | 08 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 18046,18046 |
| Citation | 242 S.C. 198,130 S.E.2d 473 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Johnny B. CHASTEEN, Appellant. |
W. Harper Welborn, Anderson, for appellant.
Solicitor John K. Grisso, Anderson, for respondent.
The appellant was convicted of bastardy. His defense consisted principally of offering the testimony of witnesses Brown and Sargeant, both of whom testified that they had had sexual relations with the prosecuting witness near the time when she became pregnant. The prosecuting witness denied knowing either of said witnesses, both of whom were personal friends of the defendant.
There are three exceptions on the part of the appellant, but exceptions two and three raise no issue which appellant is entitled to have reviewed by this court, they being vague, general and in violation of Rule 4, Section 6 of the Supreme Court Rules.
The first exception asserts error on the part of the trial judge in refusing to order a mistrial because of the following matters.
In the course of the cross-examination of appellant's witness Brown, the following occurred:
'
'Court: Yes, Mr. Solicitor, I don't think it is proper.
'Solicitor: Alright, sir, I will withdraw it, Your Honor.'
Following this ruling and withdrawal by the solicitor, counsel for appellant apparently did not consider what had occurred as being prejudicial as he made no further objection or motion. We think he was correct in concluding that appellant was not prejudiced thereby.
Later, in the presentation of the defense, counsel for appellant himself proffered as a witness in behalf of the appellant a deputy sheriff of Anderson County, and elicited from him the information that he had that day taken out two warrants in bastardy proceedings against the witnesses Brown and Sargeant. Following a brief cross-examination of the deputy sheriff by the solicitor, a counsel for appellant moved for a directed verdict and for a new trial, contending that the appellant had been prejudiced and the witness embarrassed before the jury on account of the warrants. Counsel never made a motion for a mistrial, but the trial court, nevertheless, considered his motions as being one for a mistrial. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the actual issuance of warrants for appellant's witnesses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dingle
...that each exception contain a concise statement of one proposition of law and generalizations are not permitted. In State v. Chasteen, 242 S.C. 198, 130 S.E.2d 473 (1963), we held that vague and general exceptions raise no issue reviewable by this Court. In Solley v. Weaver, 247 S.C. 129, 1......
-
State v. Quillien
...Judge. Even if there were error, it was invited by counsel for Appellant, leaving Appellant in no position to complain. State v. Chasteen, 242 S.C. 198, 130 S.E.2d 473. The fourth exception asserts error on the part of the Trial Judge in the following testimony to be introduced over his obj......
-
State v. Miller
... ... failed to join in co-defendant's objections) ... Here, ... not only did Miller make no objection to the manslaughter ... charge, he specifically requested that no such charge be ... given. See State v. Chasteen, 242 S.C. 198, 130 ... S.E.2d 473 (1963) (holding that the defendant could not ... complain of an error he invited). Accordingly, he cannot now ... complain that the charge was not given ... AFFIRMED ... HEARN, ... C.J., and GOOLSBY and ... ...
-
State v. McCauley, Appellate Case No. 2010-181526
...contributed to at trial nor preserve a vice and, upon learning of the outcome of trial, raise it on appeal."); State v. Chasteen, 242 S.C. 198, 201, 130 S.E.2d 473, 475 (1963) ("Even if there were error, it was clearly invited by counsel for appellant, leaving appellant in no position to co......