State v. Hawkins

387 S.E.2d 251, 300 S.C. 225, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 236
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Hawkins. Read the opinion of the Court — 292 S.C. 418
Supreme Court of South Carolina·Decided December 11, 1989·No. 23121·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

[226]*226Appellant, Tim Hawkins (Hawkins) was convicted of indecent exposure and sentenced to ten years, suspended upon service of one year and five years probation. We reverse.

It is clear from the record that improper and prejudicial comments of the trial judge mandate a new trial.

The improprieties here so closely parallel those condemned by this Court in State v. Campbell, 297 S. C. 24, 374 S. E. (2d) 668 (1988), that no recitation is required. See also our recent opinion in State v. Ates, 297 S. C. 316, 377 S. E. (2d) 98 (1989).

Again, we caution trial courts that the sitting judge must conduct all adversarial proceedings with fairness and impartiality. The wide discretion accorded presiding judges, embedded in the law of South Carolina, is essential to the orderly administration of justice.

When, however, this discretion is exercised with abuse, to the prejudice of a party-litigant, as here, the result is legal error requiring a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

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

State v. Hawkins, 387 S.E.2d 251, 300 S.C. 225, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 236 (S.C. 1989).

387 S.E.2d 251 (State v. Hawkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ates
377 S.E.2d 98 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1989)
State v. Campbell
374 S.E.2d 668 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1988)