State v. Crowley
| Decision Date | 03 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 16956,16956 |
| Citation | 226 S.C. 472,85 S.E.2d 714 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Elwood CROWLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
J. Trus Hayes, Jr. and Mary Frances Hayes, Dillon, for appellant.
Solicitor Robert L. Kilgo, Darlington, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of perjury on account of his testimony at a prior trial of others upon an indictment for murder. He has appealed and presents two questions, the first of which follows: Did the court err in permitting the State to introduce into evidence and present to the jury all of the testimony given by the defendant in the former trial.
The State produced as a witness the official court stenographer who took the testimony at the former trial by shorthand, transcribed his notes, and his transcript was offered in evidence. Appellant's counsel expressly stated that there was no objection to its admission, whereupon it was admitted in evidence. On mode of proving former testimony, see annotation in 11 A.L.R.2d 30. Question was raised only when the solicitor afterward began to publish the testimony to the jury by the reading of the transcript to them. Then appellant's counsel said: 'May it please the Court, we don't feel that the Solicitor has the right to read all of the testimony to the jury, only the particular testimony as pertains toward the items in the indictment.'
After some interchange with counsel the court ruled and said to the solicitor: There was no motion at any time to strike any part of the transcript from the evidence.
It is seen from the foregoing that all of appellant's testimony at the former trial was admitted in evidence without objection; and his counsel's subsequent objection to the publication of it in its entirety was upon no stated ground, whereby the objection was ineffectual, even if it had been timely entered. It is elementary that an objection to the admission of evidence must be upon a specified ground. Caldwell v. Duncan, 87 S.C. 331, 69 S.E. 660; McKain v. Camden Water, Light & Ice Co., 89 S.C. 378, 71 S.E. 949; Piero v. Southern Express Co., 103 S.C. 467, 88 S.E. 269; Mitchum v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 115 S.C. 500, 106 S.E. 769. There are thus two compelling reasons why the first question must be overruled, and it is.
Appellant's second and last question on appeal assigns error in the refusal of the court to direct a verdict of acquittal upon counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 12 of the indictment. There were seventeen separate counts or assignments of perjury in the indictment. Upon appellant's motion the court directed a verdict of acquittal as to counts 11, 14, 15 and 16; and the State withdraw counts 9 and 17. The remaining counts or assignments were submitted to the jury which returned a verdict of guilty as to those which are referred to in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...in record); Issue 6: State v. Tucker, supra (party must make contemporaneous objection to preserve issue on appeal); State v. Crowley, 226 S.C. 472, 85 S.E.2d 714 (1955) (objection must be on specific ground); Bailey, supra (party cannot argue another ground on appeal); Issue 9: State v. Ko......
-
State v. Clute
... ... Clute further argued the only reason the State would introduce the evidence would be to prejudice the jury ... An objection to evidence must be contemporaneous and must be upon a specified ground. State v. Crowley, 226 S.C. 472, ... 85 S.E.2d 714 (1955). Here, Clute waited until the close of both the State and defense cases to move for a mistrial on the ground the evidence of the prior conviction was improper character evidence. The failure to make a proper contemporaneous objection to the admission of ... ...
-
State v. Holliday
...must make a contemporaneous objection on a specific ground. State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 (1994); State v. Crowley, 226 S.C. 472, 85 S.E.2d 714 (1955). In terms of the specific objection, South Carolina Rule of Evidence 103 provides in pertinent (a) Effect of Erroneous Ruli......
-
Tucker v. Catoe
...298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989) (a party cannot argue one ground below and then argue another ground on appeal); State v. Crowley, 226 S.C. 472, 85 S.E.2d 714 (1955) (objection must be on specific Tucker, 462 S.E.2d at 264-65. Put simply, we are unable to discern how the Supreme Court of ......