Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

STATE v. YOUNG

Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Dec 3, 1970
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
DOCKET NO.

19133

Attorney(S)

Messrs. John W. Williams, Jr., and John W. McIntosh of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to the Trial Judge improperly failing to make an independent determination of the oral statement given by the Appellant, said error being that some tribunal other than the trial jury must make an initial determination of the voluntariness of a confession: 378 U.S. 368; 248 S.C. 506, 151 S.E.2d 752. As to the lower Court improperly admitting into evidence an oral statement given to the police by the Appellant, said error being that the statement was obtained through deception and false promises and therefore involuntary: 386 U.S. 707; 377 U.S. 201; 365 U.S. 534. As to error for the lower Court to submit to the jury the charge of robbery, said error being that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant submission of this charge: 77 C.J.S., Robbery, Sec. 1; 77 C.J.S. Sec. 10; 77 C.J.S., Robbery Sec. 11; 77 C.J.S., Robbery, Sec. 13. As to trial Judge improperly sentencing the Appellant, when Appellant was without effective assistance of counsel at the time of sentencing: 389 U.S. 128. John W. Foard, Jr., Esq.; Solicitor, of Columbia, for Respondent.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Important Paras
Please sign up to view Important Paras.
Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Perry Lee Young, was indicted for grand larceny and robbery. The jury convicted him of robbery, and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Young was represented at trial by retained counsel with many years of experience, and appellate counsel was appointed specifically for the appeal. The appeal challenges the conviction and sentence.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that none of the questions argued on appeal were raised or passed upon during the trial. It emphasized the fundamental principle that issues not raised at trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Citing West's South Carolina Digest on Appeal and Error, the court found no properly preserved questions before it and thus declined to consider the appeal.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal due to procedural default, as the appellant failed to raise the contested issues during the trial. This decision directly affects the appellant by affirming the trial court's conviction and sentence without review. The opinion sets no new precedent.

Show all summary ...

December 3, 1970.

Per Curiam:

The appellant Young was indicted for grand larceny and robbery. The jury convicted him of robbery and the appeal is from such conviction and his resulting sentence of five years. He was represented at the trial by retained counsel of many years experience. Counsel on appeal was appointed for such purpose.

The record does not reflect that any of the questions argued on appeal were raised or passed upon in the course of the trial below. It is elementary that questions not raised in the trial may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See West's South Carolina Digest, Appeal and Error, Key No. 167. There being no questions properly before us for consideration, the appeal is dismissed.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x