¶1I concur in the majority’s decision, but write separately because I would omit the substantive analysis of the constitutional issues in Parts IV and V relating to the February. 16 th statement. Wé are agreed that appellant’s due process rights were violated when the trial judge denied his request for a continuance to investigate the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement. I would therefore refrain from addressing the constitutional issues on the incomplete record now before us. Compare In the Matter of McCracken, 346 S.C. 87, 551 S.E.2d 235 (2001)( Court’s firm policy not to address constitutional issues unless necessary to decide appeal).
346 S.C. 637
552 S.E.2d 745
State v. Owens
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided September 4, 2001
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 2001-09-04
Relies on In Re the Care & Treatment of McCracken
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2001-09-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably State v. Adams (2003), State v. Primus (2002)
2 federal appellate · 73 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →