State v. McKinney

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. McKinney

190 S.E.2d 30, 258 S.C. 570, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 375

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJune 30, 1972

Docket19445

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 190 S.E.2d 30 (State v. McKinney) 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. McKinney, 190 S.E.2d 30, 258 S.C. 570, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 375 (S.C. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Malcolm McKinney, the appellant herein, was convicted in the Spartanburg County Court of an assault of a high and aggravated nature. During the course of the trial certain testimony was admitted over the objection of his counsel. Thereafter, counsel for the appellant cross-examined the witness thereabout without reserving the objection previously made. The objection was thereby lost and if any error had been committed in the admission of the testimony it was cured. State v. Smith, 245 S. C. 59, 138 S. E. (2d) 705; State v. Motley, 251 S. C. 568, 164 S. E. (2d) 569, and State v. Lee, 255 S. C. 309, 178 S. E. (2d) 652.

The only error alleged was the admission of the testimony hereinbefore referred to. It is apparent under the cases above cited that the exception posing this question is without merit.

The judgment below is,

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

Malcolm McKinney, the appellant herein, was convicted in the Spartanburg County Court of an assault of a high and aggravated nature. During the course of the trial certain testimony was admitted over the objection of his counsel. Thereafter, counsel for the appellant cross-examined the witness thereabout without reserving the objection previously made. The objection was thereby lost and if any error had been committed in the admission of the testimony it was cured. State v. Smith, 245 S. C. 59, 138 S. E. (2d) 705; State v. Motley, 251 S. C. 568, 164 S. E. (2d) 569, and State v. Lee, 255 S. C. 309, 178 S. E. (2d) 652.

The only error alleged was the admission of the testimony hereinbefore referred to. It is apparent under the cases above cited that the exception posing this question is without merit.

The judgment below is,

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E.2d 30, 258 S.C. 570, 1972 S.C. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mckinney-sc-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack