State v. Sroka

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Sroka

230 S.E.2d 816, 267 S.C. 664, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 295

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 21, 1976

Docket20331

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 230 S.E.2d 816 (State v. Sroka) 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. Sroka, 230 S.E.2d 816, 267 S.C. 664, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 295 (S.C. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Appellant, James Sroka, and a codefendant were convicted of armed robbery of the manager of Doscher’s Red and White Store in Charleston County, and each sentenced to prison terms. Only Sroka has appealed. Judgment is affirmed.

Appellant charges that the trial judge erred (1) in refusing to permit cross-examination of a key State’s witness con *665 cerning the prior conviction of the witness for possession of stimulant drugs without a prescription; (2) in refusing to grant certain requested charges to the jury; (3) in refusing to grant a mistrial because of testimony concerning an alleged prejudicial declaration of the codefendant; and (4) in allowing the entire trial transcript to be included in the Transcript of Record.

We affirm because the guilt of the appellant is conclusively shown by the record and any alleged error could not have been prejudicial. Any doubt about the correctness of this conclusion is eliminated by the admission of appellant in open court, after conviction and during the pre-sentence inquiry by the trial judge, that he had participated in the robbery with a sawed-off shotgun. Further review of the record, therefore, is rendered unnecessary. State v. Key, 256 S. C. 90, 180 S. E. (2d) 888; State v. Miller, 266 S. C. 409, 223 S. E. (2d) 774.

Judgment affirmed.

Littlejohn, Ness, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ., concur.

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

Lewis, Chief Justice:

Appellant, James Sroka, and a codefendant were convicted of armed robbery of the manager of Doscher’s Red and White Store in Charleston County, and each sentenced to prison terms. Only Sroka has appealed. Judgment is affirmed.

Appellant charges that the trial judge erred (1) in refusing to permit cross-examination of a key State’s witness con *665 cerning the prior conviction of the witness for possession of stimulant drugs without a prescription; (2) in refusing to grant certain requested charges to the jury; (3) in refusing to grant a mistrial because of testimony concerning an alleged prejudicial declaration of the codefendant; and (4) in allowing the entire trial transcript to be included in the Transcript of Record.

We affirm because the guilt of the appellant is conclusively shown by the record and any alleged error could not have been prejudicial. Any doubt about the correctness of this conclusion is eliminated by the admission of appellant in open court, after conviction and during the pre-sentence inquiry by the trial judge, that he had participated in the robbery with a sawed-off shotgun. Further review of the record, therefore, is rendered unnecessary. State v. Key, 256 S. C. 90, 180 S. E. (2d) 888; State v. Miller, 266 S. C. 409, 223 S. E. (2d) 774.

Judgment affirmed.

Littlejohn, Ness, Rhodes and Gregory, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 S.E.2d 816, 267 S.C. 664, 1976 S.C. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sroka-sc-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack