State v. Miller
| Citation | 289 S.C. 316,345 S.E.2d 489 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22570,22570 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Frank MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Jack B. Swerling and Richard A. Harpootlian, of Swerling and Harpootlian, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Norman Mark Rapoport, and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of two counts of distribution of heroin and sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment. Prior to trial, the trial court ordered appellant to supply the State with a list of proposed defense witnesses. Appellant argues this was error because Circuit Court Rule 103 1 does not authorize discovery of defense witnesses. We agree but affirm because we find no prejudice.
In construing Rule 103, this Court has looked to federal courts' 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 (1971); see also United States v. Layton, 90 F.R.D. 520 (N.D.Cal.1981) (). Rule 103 does not specifically permit the discovery of witness lists. Therefore, we hold the trial court erred in compelling appellant to provide a list of defense witnesses.
The error, however, does not require reversal of appellant's conviction. Appellant's only witness was JoAnn Williams, who led undercover officers to appellant in exchange for a police agreement to drop prostitution charges against her. Clearly, the State knew of Ms. Williams' involvement in the case and the substance of her testimony. Under these circumstances, the required disclosure of Ms. Williams' name was harmless error. State v. Riggins, 262 S.C. 466, 205 S.E.2d 376 (1974).
Appellant's remaining exceptions are without merit and are disposed of under Supreme Court Rule 23.
1 Now Rule 8, Criminal Practice Rules.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Powers
...jury with some degree of accuracy and pursuant to the law." Powers contends this ruling conflicts with our holdings in State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 316, 345 S.E.2d 489 (1986) and State v. Hall, 268 S.C. 524, 530, 235 S.E.2d 112, 114 (1977). We In Miller, we held it is error to require, prior t......
-
State v. Matthews
...of potential jurors. We find no abuse. No right to discovery exists in a criminal case absent statute or court rule. State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 316, 345 S.E.2d 489 (1986). The operative rule here, Rule 8, Criminal Notwithstanding Rule 8, we reject appellant's Due Process attack on the judge'......
-
State v. Woods
...This holding is consistent with the holdings of other appellate courts faced with similar circumstances. See, e.g., State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 316, 345 S.E.2d 489 (1986); Reynolds v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 12 Cal.3d 834, 117 Cal.Rptr. 437, 528 P.2d 45 (1974); Rodriguez v. Supe......
-
State v. Childs
...of arrest. No right to discovery exists in a criminal case absent statute or court rule. State v. Matthews, supra; State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 316, 345 S.E.2d 489 (1986). Because there is no statute or court rule requiring a disclosure of this information, we hold that the trial judge did not......