State v. Hawkins

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Hawkins

387 S.E.2d 251, 300 S.C. 225, 1989 S.C. LEXIS 236

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 11, 1989

Docket23121

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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