State v. Johnson
Decision Date | 18 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 20784,20784 |
Citation | State v. Johnson, 248 S.E.2d 313, 271 S.C. 485 (S.C. 1978) |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. John Henry JOHNSON, Appellant. |
Nancy C. Ranson and John D. Delgado, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Attys.Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Robert N. Wells, Jr. and Sol.James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted on September 14, 1977 of having committed the crime of forgery on March 11, 1977.He appeals from his conviction and subsequent sentence of seven (7) years on the sole ground that the lower court erred in the admission of testimony that he had been previously convicted of forgery in 1964.
Appellant testified in his own behalf and the testimony concerning two 1964 forgery convictions were admitted solely for impeachment purposes.He contends that the 1964 convictions were too remote in time to be of any probative value in determining his credibility.
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a "prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude may be used for the purpose of impeaching a defendant-witness's credibility if the conviction is not too remote in time."State v. Lee, 269 S.C. 421, 237 S.E.2d 768;Gantt v. Columbia Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 204 S.C. 374, 29 S.E.2d 488.
There is no rule in this State specifying any numerical time limitation beyond which a prior conviction is inadmissible for impeachment purposes.The rule applied is that the determination of the point at which a prior conviction becomes inadmissible for such purpose, because "too remote in time," is within the discretion of the trial judge; and the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed except in cases of manifest abuse or injustice.Spears v. Collins, 253 S.C. 510, 171 S.E.2d 606.
In State v. Hill, 268 S.C. 390, 234 S.E.2d 219, we stated that a ten (10) year old conviction was "too remote to possess the requisite probative value for admission."There was nothing in that case to indicate that additional crimes evidencing moral turpitude had been committed by the defendant in the intervening years.However, subsequently, in State v. Jones, S.C., 247 S.E.2d 43, filed August 9, 1978, a prior conviction, more than ten years old, was held admissible where the defendant had been released from confinement for the prior offense only four years before the last crime.
In this case, appellant had prior convictions for forgery in 1960 and in 1964, and pled guilty to...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 3-day 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 7-day Trial
-
State v. Hyman
...rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 486, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). Here, the witness was convicted of murder in 1960. He was paroled in 1970, when eligible under the then existing laws. During......
-
Green v. Hewett
...outweighs the probative value of such evidence on the issue of credibility so as to warrant its exclusion); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978) (a prior conviction of a crime of moral turpitude may be used for the purpose of impeaching a party witness' credibility if the c......
-
State v. Thompson
...discretion and the defendant suffered prejudice as a result. See State v. Groome, 274 S.C. 189, 262 S.E.2d 31 (1980); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). In this case, the child's testimony in court contained additional details not given in her out of court statement. She......
-
Legare v. State
...for the purpose of impeaching a defendant-witness's credibility if the conviction is not too remote in time.2 See State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). The decision whether a prior conviction is too remote in time is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge. ......
-
Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
...judge. Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991); State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 317 S.E.2d 129 (1984); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). The ten year limit was adopted to help guide trial courts in making uniform determinations in this area. Subsection (c)......
-
B. Evidentiary Considerations
...In re Moseley, 302 S.C. 429, 396 S.E.2d 830 (1990).[312] Green v. Hewett, 305 S.C. 238, 407 S.E.2d 651 (1991); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978); State v. Scott, 326 S.C. 448, 484 S.E.2d 110 (Ct. App. 1997).[313] Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 527 S.E.2d 98 (2000). [314] ......
-
Rule 609. Impeachment by Evidence of Conviction of Crime
...judge. Horton v. State, 306 S.C. 252, 411 S.E.2d 223 (1991); State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 317 S.E.2d 129 (1984); State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978). The ten year limit was adopted to help guide trial courts in making uniform determinations in this area. Subsection (c)......
-
C. Classification of Offenses
...and run driving (thereby concealing one's true identity), State v. Horton, 271 S.C. 413, 248 S.E.2d 263 (1978); forgery, State v. Johnson, 271 S.C. 485, 248 S.E.2d 313 (1978); and making illegal whiskey, Gantt v. Columbia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 204 S.C. 374, 29 S.E.2d 488 (1944). The last ......