State v. Ritch
This text of 354 S.E.2d 909 (State v. Ritch) 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.
Opinion
Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in proceeding with his trial in absentia. We agree.
The trial judge failed to find that appellant had received notice of his right to be present at trial and a warning that he would be tried in his absence should he fail to attend, as required by Criminal Practice Rule 3. This was an error. State v. Jackson, 288 S. C. 94, 341 S. E. (2d) 375 (1986); State v. Fleming, 287 S. C. 268, 335 S. E. (2d) 814 (Ct. App. 1985). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
354 S.E.2d 909, 292 S.C. 75, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ritch-sc-1987.