State v. Chreitsburgh
This text of 15 S.C.L. 30 (State v. Chreitsburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
These were cross indictments for assaults and batteries, and tried together. The defendant Chreitsburgh, offered no evidence, and His counsel Mr. I. E. Holmes, contended that he had the right of reply, which was claimed by the Attorney General! The Recorder ..of Charleston decided' in favor of the Attorney General, and the defendant appealed. .
The Court held that in ordinary cases,' where the' defendant offered' no evidence, his cOurisetwere entitled to the reply, but where cross indictments weré taken Up and tried together; and the defendant’s witnesses aré examined on the indictment which He preferred’, that the State is entitled to the reply. The State v. Brisbane, 1 Bay 453, was referred to by the Court.
Motion refused.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 S.C.L. 30, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chreitsburgh-scctapp-1826.