State v. Yancy

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Yancy

6 S.C.L. 241

DecidedNovember 15, 1812

StatusPublished

This text of 6 S.C.L. 241 (State v. Yancy) 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. Yancy, 6 S.C.L. 241 (S.C. 1812).

Pincite

Opinion

Nott, J.

One of the defendants in this case is indicted as principal, and the other as accessary. After the defendants had been arraigned, and pleaded not guilty, their counsel moved that they might he tried separately, which was allowed by the presiding judge. Application is now made to this court, to reverse that decision. It is admitted that an accessary cannot he tried before the principal, and formerly it was held that he could not be tried until the principal was convicted. But now they may be tried together. (2 Hawk. P. C. Foster’s C. L. 360.) But this does not deprive the accessa-ry of any right that he had before; and much less does it deprive the court of any discretion it had before. Admitting therefore that the accused cannot demand it as a right, the court may in its discretion permit it. And I think it a reasonable indulgence, which I presume would seldom be refused. I am, therefore, of opinion, that this motion to reverse the decision ought to be refused.

Justices Grimke, Smith, Colcock, Bay and Breyard concurred.

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

Nott, J.

One of the defendants in this case is indicted as principal, and the other as accessary. After the defendants had been arraigned, and pleaded not guilty, their counsel moved that they might he tried separately, which was allowed by the presiding judge. Application is now made to this court, to reverse that decision. It is admitted that an accessary cannot he tried before the principal, and formerly it was held that he could not be tried until the principal was convicted. But now they may be tried together. (2 Hawk. P. C. Foster’s C. L. 360.) But this does not deprive the accessa-ry of any right that he had before; and much less does it deprive the court of any discretion it had before. Admitting therefore that the accused cannot demand it as a right, the court may in its discretion permit it. And I think it a reasonable indulgence, which I presume would seldom be refused. I am, therefore, of opinion, that this motion to reverse the decision ought to be refused.

Justices Grimke, Smith, Colcock, Bay and Breyard concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 S.C.L. 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-yancy-sc-1812.