From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Bridges

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Dec 7, 1982
278 S.C. 447 (S.C. 1982)

Summary

holding that, in general, the conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and the appellate court will not interfere unless it clearly appears that rights of the complaining party were abused or prejudiced in some way

Summary of this case from State v. Cooper

Opinion

21821

December 7, 1982.

John I. Mauldin, of Yarborough, Mauldin Allison, Greenville, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. William B. Traxler, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.


Dec. 7, 1982.


Appellant was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct. The trial judge sentenced him to thirty years in prison.

Prior to the close of the State's case, appellant's counsel requested a ruling from the trial judge as to whether the State could use a 1977 guilty plea for impeachment purposes if appellant decided to testify. The trial judge refused to make an anticipatory ruling, stating he would rule on the issue if appellant took the stand and if objection was made. Appellant elected not to take the stand.

Appellant argues on appeal the trial judge's refusal to rule in advance had a chilling effect on his decision whether or not to testify in his own behalf.

The general rule in this State is that the conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the presiding judge and this Court will not interfere unless it clearly appears that the rights of the complaining party were abused or prejudiced in some way. State v. Sinclair, 275 S.C. 608, 274 S.E.2d 411 (1981).

We hold that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to rule on the admissibility of the impeachment evidence until it was offered in the regular course of trial. See State v. Morgan, 192 Wn. 425, 73 P.2d 745 (1937); People v. Rose, 75 Ill. App.3d 45, 30 Ill. Dec. 662, 393 N.E.2d 698 (1979). Accordingly, we affirm the ruling of the trial judge.

Other issues raised by appellant are affirmed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.


Summaries of

State v. Bridges

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Dec 7, 1982
278 S.C. 447 (S.C. 1982)

holding that, in general, the conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and the appellate court will not interfere unless it clearly appears that rights of the complaining party were abused or prejudiced in some way

Summary of this case from State v. Cooper
Case details for

State v. Bridges

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Respondent, v. Clifton Lee BRIDGES, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Dec 7, 1982

Citations

278 S.C. 447 (S.C. 1982)
298 S.E.2d 212

Citing Cases

State v. Silver

We disagree. In the case of State v. Bridges, 278 S.C. 447, 298 S.E.2d 212 (1982), the trial judge refused to…

State v. Sheppard

The conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the sound discretion of the trial judge, who will not be…