State v. Heatley

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Heatley

126 S.E.2d 8, 240 S.C. 370, 1962 S.C. LEXIS 109

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 6, 1962

Docket17926

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.E.2d 8 (State v. Heatley) 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. Heatley, 126 S.E.2d 8, 240 S.C. 370, 1962 S.C. LEXIS 109 (S.C. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, Justice.

These defendants, 47 in number, were tried by the Magistrate at. Orangeburg, South Carolina, without a jury, and found guilty of the offense of breach of the peace. They have appealed and charge error on the part of the trial court (1) in. refusing to dismiss the warrant issued against them on the grounds that the information upon which the warrant was issued failed to fully set forth the crime charged, and (2) in refusing to sustain their contention that the State failed to prove the commission by them of the offense of breach of the peace. Under basically the same facts, the identical issues were presented in the case of The State v. Irene Brown et al., S. C., 126 S. E. (2d).1, and decided adversely to the contentions of these defendants. The decision in that case, which is being filed simultaneously herewith, is controlling here and requires affirmance of the judgment of the lower court.

Affirmed.

■ Taylor, C. J., and Moss, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

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

Lewis, Justice.

These defendants, 47 in number, were tried by the Magistrate at. Orangeburg, South Carolina, without a jury, and found guilty of the offense of breach of the peace. They have appealed and charge error on the part of the trial court (1) in. refusing to dismiss the warrant issued against them on the grounds that the information upon which the warrant was issued failed to fully set forth the crime charged, and (2) in refusing to sustain their contention that the State failed to prove the commission by them of the offense of breach of the peace. Under basically the same facts, the identical issues were presented in the case of The State v. Irene Brown et al., S. C., 126 S. E. (2d).1, and decided adversely to the contentions of these defendants. The decision in that case, which is being filed simultaneously herewith, is controlling here and requires affirmance of the judgment of the lower court.

Affirmed.

■ Taylor, C. J., and Moss, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E.2d 8, 240 S.C. 370, 1962 S.C. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heatley-sc-1962.