 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. LEONARD1/7/1986
ontrary to law. Since there was evidence to the effect that Harrison had directed or knowingly permitted Leonard to drive him home when he knew Leonard was intoxicated, we see no error in this charge. In reviewing a jury charge for error, we must consider the charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial. State v. Hyman, 276 S.C. 559, 281 S.E.2d 209 (1981). Having done this, we find no error in the judge's charge.
II.
Special Interrogatories
Both appellants argue that the trial judge erred in denying appellants' request that the court submit special interrogatories to the jury. Both also claim that Section 15-33-30 authorizes the trial court to submit special interrogatories to the jury. We see no error in the trial judge's decision not to use special interrogatories. Firstly, this provision is found in the Code under Civil Remedies and Procedures. Secondly, the decision to use special interrogatories to obtain a special verdict lies within the trial judge's discretion. Clanton's Auto Auction Sales, Inc., v. Campbell, 230 S.C. 65, 94 S.E.2d 172, 175 (1956).
III.
Testimony Concerning
Harrison argues that the trial court erred in refusing to strike evidence concerning the blood test which showed his
IV.
Harrison's Motion For Mistrial
During oral argument Leonard's attorney stated that Harrison had been charged with
V.
Leonard's Motion For Severance For Separate Trials
We see no error in the trial judge's denial of the motion for severance. " he granting or denial of a motion for severance and separate trials is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge. Unless that discretion is abused, his decision will not be disturbed. The general rule applies with equal force when, as in the instant case, the motion is based upon antagonistic defenses." State v. Allen, 266 S.C. 175, 182-83, 222 S.E.2d 287, 290 (1976).
VI.
Leonard's Motion For Continuance To Locate Witness
We see no error in the trial judge's denial of the motion for a continuance. Leonard's motion, made after the jury had been impaneled, sought extra time for him to locate an out-of-state witness whose testimony would duplicate other eyewitness testimony. The granting or denial of a motion for a continuance is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and absent a showing of prejudicial abuse, his decision will not be disturbed on appeal. " eversals of refusal of continuance are about as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth." State v. Lytchfield, 230 S.C. 405, 409, 95 S.E.2d 857, 859 (1957). Moreover, a motion for continuance based on grounds which exist prior to trial ordinarily must be made before the jury is sworn. State v. Greuling, 257 S.C. 515, 520, 186 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1972).
VII.
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of
Leonard argues that the circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over
..." Section 22-3-540. The maximum penalty for
VIII.
Leonard's Motion To Sever
Near the end of the trial Leonard moved to "exclude
Having found no error, the convictions of the appellants are
Affirmed.
SANDERS, C.J., and GARDNER, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|