In re James L.

385 S.E.2d 838, 299 S.C. 470, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 198
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided November 6, 1989·No. 23100·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

We reverse pursuant to the following authorities: State v. Edwards, 298 S. C. 272, 379 S. E. (2d) 888 (1989); State v. Littlejohn, 228 S. C. 324, 89 S. E. (2d) 924 (1955). (If there is no substantial evidence which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which his guilt may be fairly and logically deduced, then the trial judge should direct a verdict.)

One of the issues raised by this appeal is the appropriateness of the joinder of juvenile criminal charges. We conclude that juvenile criminal charges may be joined if they (1) “arise out of a single chain of circumstances,” (2) “are proved by the same evidence,” (3) “are of the same general nature,” and (4) no “real right of the defendant has been jeopardized.” State v. Middleton, 288 S. C. 21, 339 S. E. (2d) 692 (1986); City of Greenville v. Chapman, 210 S. C. 157, 41 S. E. (2d) 865 (1947).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re James L., 385 S.E.2d 838, 299 S.C. 470, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 198 (S.C. 1989).

385 S.E.2d 838 (In re James L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Littlejohn
89 S.E.2d 924 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1955)
State v. Edwards
379 S.E.2d 888 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1989)
State v. Middleton
339 S.E.2d 692 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1986)
City of Greenville v. Chapman
41 S.E.2d 865 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1947)