State v. Oxendine

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Oxendine

233 S.E.2d 119, 268 S.C. 329, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 424

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedMarch 10, 1977

Docket20381

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.E.2d 119 (State v. Oxendine) 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. Oxendine, 233 S.E.2d 119, 268 S.C. 329, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 424 (S.C. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of distribution of obscene material and sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. On this appeal he asserts error in the trial judge’s denial of a motion to quash the indictment and in allowing the introduction of the alleged obscene matter into evidence. Both of these alleged errors are grounded on the theory that the State failed to grant a preliminary hearing as provided for in § 16-414.7(d), S. C. Code Ann. (1962), as amended.

[330]*330In State v. Oxendine, S. C., 233 S. E. (2d) 118, filed herewith, we held (under identical circumstances involving the same appellant) that § 16-414.7 (d) is applicable only in instances where the alleged obscene matter was seized. Since the record here shows that the material in question was purchased, § 16-414.7(d) was not applicable. Thus, no error was committed by the trial judge.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed 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 distribution of obscene material and sentenced to two (2) years imprisonment. On this appeal he asserts error in the trial judge’s denial of a motion to quash the indictment and in allowing the introduction of the alleged obscene matter into evidence. Both of these alleged errors are grounded on the theory that the State failed to grant a preliminary hearing as provided for in § 16-414.7(d), S. C. Code Ann. (1962), as amended.

[330]*330In State v. Oxendine, S. C., 233 S. E. (2d) 118, filed herewith, we held (under identical circumstances involving the same appellant) that § 16-414.7 (d) is applicable only in instances where the alleged obscene matter was seized. Since the record here shows that the material in question was purchased, § 16-414.7(d) was not applicable. Thus, no error was committed by the trial judge.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed without oral argument.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.E.2d 119, 268 S.C. 329, 1977 S.C. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oxendine-sc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack