State v. Bailey

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Bailey

272 S.E.2d 439, 275 S.C. 444, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 498

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 20, 1980

Docket21334

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 272 S.E.2d 439 (State v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bailey, 272 S.E.2d 439, 275 S.C. 444, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 498 (S.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of disturbing a school and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He contends that error was committed by the lower court in admitting testimony concerning a prior conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. We agree.

[446]*446Evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. State v. Lyle, 125 S. C. 406, 118 S. E. 803 (1925). The State contends, however, that the testimony in question was admissible as a crime of moral turpitude for the purpose of impeaching appellant’s credibility. See State v. Lee, 269 S. C. 421, 237 S. E. (2d) 768 (1977). The crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not, however, invariably constitute a crime of moral turpitude, since that determination depends on the facts of each particular case. See United States ex rel. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F. (2d) 757 (2d Cir. 1933) ; Burford v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 752, 20 S. E. (2d) 509 (1942).

Proof of the nature of a prior conviction must necessarily be confined to the inherent nature of the crime as defined by law and particularized by the indictment. More thorough proof of the underlying circumstances would possibly require an extensive hearing on collateral matters and therefore be adverse to the uniform and efficient administration of law. See United States ex rel. Mansella v. Zimmerman, 71 F. Supp. 534 (E. D. Pa. 1947). Since the crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not necessarily constitute a crime of moral turpitude, and since the indictment for the prior conviction was not produced for review by the trial court, appellant’s conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. See State v. Harvey, 268 S. E. (2d) 587 (S. C. 1980).

Littlejohn, J., dissents.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of disturbing a school and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He contends that error was committed by the lower court in admitting testimony concerning a prior conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. We agree.

[446]*446Evidence of other crimes is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. State v. Lyle, 125 S. C. 406, 118 S. E. 803 (1925). The State contends, however, that the testimony in question was admissible as a crime of moral turpitude for the purpose of impeaching appellant’s credibility. See State v. Lee, 269 S. C. 421, 237 S. E. (2d) 768 (1977). The crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not, however, invariably constitute a crime of moral turpitude, since that determination depends on the facts of each particular case. See United States ex rel. Zaffarano v. Corsi, 63 F. (2d) 757 (2d Cir. 1933) ; Burford v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 752, 20 S. E. (2d) 509 (1942).

Proof of the nature of a prior conviction must necessarily be confined to the inherent nature of the crime as defined by law and particularized by the indictment. More thorough proof of the underlying circumstances would possibly require an extensive hearing on collateral matters and therefore be adverse to the uniform and efficient administration of law. See United States ex rel. Mansella v. Zimmerman, 71 F. Supp. 534 (E. D. Pa. 1947). Since the crime of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature does not necessarily constitute a crime of moral turpitude, and since the indictment for the prior conviction was not produced for review by the trial court, appellant’s conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. See State v. Harvey, 268 S. E. (2d) 587 (S. C. 1980).

Littlejohn, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.E.2d 439, 275 S.C. 444, 1980 S.C. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bailey-sc-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack