State v. McDonald

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. McDonald

230 S.E.2d 617, 267 S.C. 588, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 282

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 30, 1976

Docket20314

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 230 S.E.2d 617 (State v. McDonald) 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. McDonald, 230 S.E.2d 617, 267 S.C. 588, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 282 (S.C. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of murder, assault and battery with intent to kill and armed robbery. On this appeal he asserts that certain witnesses should not have been allowed to testify at trial, because their identities were obtained as a result of the violation of a codefendant’s constitutional rights.

It is the settled rule that, outside certain well defined exceptions, one may not assert a violation of another’s constitutional rights. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. (2d) 1488; Alderman v. U. S., 394 U. S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. (2d) 176, reh. den. 394 U. S. 939, 89 S. Ct. 1177, 22 L. Ed. (2d) 475. The appellant does not base his argument on a violation of his own constitutional rights, but on a violation of another’s rights. We think it is clear that such a vicarious assertion of constitutional rights is wholly without merit.

We affirm without oral argument.

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

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of murder, assault and battery with intent to kill and armed robbery. On this appeal he asserts that certain witnesses should not have been allowed to testify at trial, because their identities were obtained as a result of the violation of a codefendant’s constitutional rights.

It is the settled rule that, outside certain well defined exceptions, one may not assert a violation of another’s constitutional rights. N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. (2d) 1488; Alderman v. U. S., 394 U. S. 165, 89 S. Ct. 961, 22 L. Ed. (2d) 176, reh. den. 394 U. S. 939, 89 S. Ct. 1177, 22 L. Ed. (2d) 475. The appellant does not base his argument on a violation of his own constitutional rights, but on a violation of another’s rights. We think it is clear that such a vicarious assertion of constitutional rights is wholly without merit.

We affirm without oral argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 S.E.2d 617, 267 S.C. 588, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcdonald-sc-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack