 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. EVANS10/3/1994
vans' attorney's concession in his closing argument that the color of the vehicle which struck the children was simply not a contested issue. State v. Shaw, 258 S.C. 236, 188 S.E.2d 186 (1972).
Further, any error in the admission of the "expert" testimony on intoxication is harmless under the facts of this case. Evans was charged with felony The jury was told by the solicitor that if it returned an involuntary manslaughter verdict, that would mean it found Evans was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The jury did return such a verdict, and thus obviously did not accept the "expert" testimony. Any error in its admission was harmless beyond any doubt. See State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 391 S.E.2d 244 (1990) (any error in admission of evidence of sexual intercourse harmless where judge directed a verdict on criminal sexual conduct charge).
Finally, the majority finds no error in the trial judge's refusal
For the foregoing reasons, I dissent in part and concur in part.
FINNEY, Justice:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|