State v. Hoffman, 22278
| Decision Date | 05 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22278,22278 |
| Citation | 285 S.C. 130,328 S.E.2d 631 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jonathan HOFFMAN, Appellant. |
Deputy Appellate Defender William Isaac Diggs, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. William Lee Ferguson, York, for respondent.
Appellant appeals his armed robbery conviction. We affirm.
During the trial, the prosecution elicited testimony regarding an oral statement made by the appellant shortly after his arrest. Appellant contends that this testimony should have been excluded because the oral statement had not been disclosed to the defense under Circuit Court Rule 103.
Under Rule 103, the prosecution must disclose "the substance of any oral statement which the prosecution intends to offer in evidence at the trial made by the defendant whether before or after arrest in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a prosecution agent."
The oral statement in this case was not made in response to interrogation. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to disclose the statement under Rule 103, and no error was committed in allowing the contested testimony.
This same result has been reached by federal courts applying Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on which Rule 103 is based. United States v. Reeves, 730 F.2d 1189 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Von Stoll, 726 F.2d 584 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Navar, 611 F.2d 1156 (5th Cir.1980).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kornahrens v. Evatt
... ... Corrections; T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General ... of the State of South Carolina, ... Respondents-Appellees ... No. 94-4008 ... United States Court of ... ...
-
Clark v. State, 23826
...the State is not required to disclose the statement, and no error is committed by allowing testimony regarding it. State v. Hoffman, 285 S.C. 130, 328 S.E.2d 631 (1985). Since the evidence shows the oral statement in this case was not made in response to interrogation but, rather, was a spo......
-
State v. Miller
...interpretation of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on which Rule 103 is based. State v. Hoffman, 285 S.Ct. 130, 328 S.E.2d 631 (1985). There is no right to discovery in a criminal case unless permitted by statute or court rule. State v. Flood, 257 S.C. 141, 184 S.E.2d 549 ......