State v. Stalnaker

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Stalnaker

4 S.C.L. 44

DecidedApril 15, 1806

StatusPublished

This text of 4 S.C.L. 44 (State v. Stalnaker) 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. Stalnaker, 4 S.C.L. 44 (S.C. 1806).

Pincite

Opinion

Bay, Brevakd, and Wilds, Justices,

were of opinion the prisoner was intitled to his discharge. The conviction on one indictment did not prevent the State from proceeding on the other. The prisoner demanded his trial in both cases, and he ought to have been tried at the second court, after demanding his trial on both indictments, or discharged as to the indictment not proceeded on. The Solicitor, and the court, should not have calculated on his suffering death on the conviction in the case, tried. A new trial might have been granted, and the prisoner admitted to bail, or judgment might have been arrested, or (as it happened) there might be a prospect of his being pardoned. To keep him in confinement under these circumstances, would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the habeas corpus act.

[45]*45Waties, and Trezevant, Justices, contra. It was unnecessary, after conviction on one indictment, to proceed on the other. The prisoner was pardoned at his own instance ; the same as if he had escaped, &c.

Motion granted.

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

Bay, Brevakd, and Wilds, Justices,

were of opinion the prisoner was intitled to his discharge. The conviction on one indictment did not prevent the State from proceeding on the other. The prisoner demanded his trial in both cases, and he ought to have been tried at the second court, after demanding his trial on both indictments, or discharged as to the indictment not proceeded on. The Solicitor, and the court, should not have calculated on his suffering death on the conviction in the case, tried. A new trial might have been granted, and the prisoner admitted to bail, or judgment might have been arrested, or (as it happened) there might be a prospect of his being pardoned. To keep him in confinement under these circumstances, would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the habeas corpus act.

[45]*45Waties, and Trezevant, Justices, contra. It was unnecessary, after conviction on one indictment, to proceed on the other. The prisoner was pardoned at his own instance ; the same as if he had escaped, &c.

Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 S.C.L. 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stalnaker-sc-1806.