State v. Laster

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Laster

201 S.E.2d 241, 261 S.C. 521, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 284

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 5, 1973

Docket19736

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 201 S.E.2d 241 (State v. Laster) 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. Laster, 201 S.E.2d 241, 261 S.C. 521, 1973 S.C. LEXIS 284 (S.C. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Littlejohn, Justice:

James Howard Laster was tried by a jury and found guilty of possessing marihuana, proscribed by § 32-1510.49 of the Code of Laws of South Carolina (Cum. Supp. 1971). After the trial, he retained his present counsel for the purpose of this appeal, wherein the propriety of admitting certain tangible evidence is challenged on two separate grounds.

In the brief submitted on Laster’s behalf, it is frankly admitted that neither of the issues were submitted to the trial judge; in fact, the record reveals that when the State sought to introduce the now challenged evidence, trial counsel for Laster affirmatively stated, “I have no objection.” Nevertheless, this Court is requested to consider the questions thus presented, as a matter of grace, and to reverse the conviction.

We have held in numerous decisions that if objections are not interposed to the introduction of evidence during the trial of a case, such questions cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This well-recognized principle is dispositive of the instant case. For the guidance of the bar, we wish to call attention to the cases collected in 7A South Carolina Digest Criminal Law Key No. 1036(1) (1971).

Affirmed.

Moss, C. J., and Lewis, Bussey and Brailsford, JJ., concur.

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