State v. McKnight

1985 S.C. LEXIS 515 · Supreme Court of South Carolina · Oct 22, 1985

Full text

The STATE, Appellant, v. Clifton McKNIGHT, Levan McKnight, Charles Montgomery, Jessie Doughty, Roscoe Pressley, and Edward Pressley, of Whom Clifton McKnight, Levan McKnight, Charles Montgomery, and Roscoe Pressley Are Respondents

ORDER This appeal is from an order granting respondents’ motion to suppress evidence that was seized pursuant to an allegedly defective search warrant. The State petitions for a writ of mandamus or supersedeas to allow admission of the evidence. The State asserts the suppression order significantly impairs the prosecution of its case. Because neither mandamus nor supersedeas is an appropriate form of relief in this case, we deny the State’s petition. We take this opportunity, however, to address respondents’ contention that the suppression order is not directly appealable. A pre-trial order granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable under S. C. Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1976). To the extent our opinion in State v. Thomas, 275 S. C. 274, 269 S. E. (2d) 768 (1980), is inconsistent with this view, it is overruled. Accordingly, the trial in this case is stayed until a decision on the merits of the appeal. It is so ordered.

Parentheticals

holding that a pre-trial order granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable under S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1976)
State v. Sterling
holding appellate courts may immediately review a pretrial order granting the suppression of evidence that significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case
State v. Cheatham
holding a pre-trial order granting the suppression of evidence that significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable
State v. Franklin
concluding a pretrial order granting the suppression of evidence that significantly impaired the prosecution of the State's case could be directly appealed by the State under section 14-3-330(2)(a)
State v. Wilson
concluding a pretrial order granting the suppression of evidence that significantly impaired the prosecution of the State’s case could be directly appealed by the State under section 14—3—330(2)(a)
State v. Wilson
the State may immediately appeal a pretrial order granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case
State v. Needs
pre-trial order granting suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable under S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1976)
State v. Huntley
the State may appeal a pretrial order granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case
State v. Hill
pre-trial order granting suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable under S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1976)
City of Rock Hill v. Thompson
"A pre-trial order granting the suppression of evidence which significantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable under S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a)(1976).”
State v. Odom
“A pre-trial order granting the suppression of evidence which signifi cantly impairs the prosecution of a criminal case is directly appealable under S.C.Code Ann. § 14-3-330(2)(a) (1976)."
State v. Samuel
allowing appeal of suppression of evidence
State v. Ballington