State v. Gosnell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Gosnell

204 S.E.2d 391, 262 S.C. 345, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 314

Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided April 10, 1974·No. 19806·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This appeal from appellant’s conviction of the offense of discharging a firearm into a dwelling in violation of Section 16-142, Code of 1962, is upon a single exception, %. e., “That the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing trial counsel’s motion for continuance.” The oral motion was made upon the ground of the absence of a witness. No attempt was made to comply with either the letter or spirit of Rule 27 of the Rules of the Circuit Court. Manifestly, since no showing was made which would have justified the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion in favor of granting the motion, no abuse of discretion in its refusal appears.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

This appeal from appellant’s conviction of the offense of discharging a firearm into a dwelling in violation of Section 16-142, Code of 1962, is upon a single exception, %. e., “That the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing trial counsel’s motion for continuance.” The oral motion was made upon the ground of the absence of a witness. No attempt was made to comply with either the letter or spirit of Rule 27 of the Rules of the Circuit Court. Manifestly, since no showing was made which would have justified the exercise of the trial judge’s discretion in favor of granting the motion, no abuse of discretion in its refusal appears.

Affirmed.

State v. Gosnell, 204 S.E.2d 391, 262 S.C. 345, 1974 S.C. LEXIS 314 (S.C. 1974).

Pincite

204 S.E.2d 391 (State v. Gosnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related