STATE v. WYATT

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10561

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Sam E. Barron and Macbeth Young, for appellant, cite: Autrefois acquit: 1 Bail. L. 651. Ban on alcoholic liquors: Sec. 794 Crim. Code 1912. Procedure changed by XVIII Amend. Const. U.S. Powers of enforcement being full and equal, prosecution in one jurisdiction is bar to prosecution in the other: 227 U.S. 309; 100 U.S. 392. "Twice in jeopardy:" 16 Corp. Jur., Par. 370, p. 239; Id., Par. 375, p. 240. Right to the plea: 27 S.C. 80; 20 S.C. 392; 65 S.C. 190; 76 S.C. 72. Defendant may enter plea and have it, and the proof submitted to the jury as an issue of fact: Const. S.C. 1895, art. I, pars. 5, 17, 18, 25; 76 S.C. 72. Mr. Ira C. Blackwood, Solicitor, for respondent.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

10561

Attorney(S)

Messrs. Sam E. Barron and Macbeth Young, for appellant, cite: Autrefois acquit: 1 Bail. L. 651. Ban on alcoholic liquors: Sec. 794 Crim. Code 1912. Procedure changed by XVIII Amend. Const. U.S. Powers of enforcement being full and equal, prosecution in one jurisdiction is bar to prosecution in the other: 227 U.S. 309; 100 U.S. 392. "Twice in jeopardy:" 16 Corp. Jur., Par. 370, p. 239; Id., Par. 375, p. 240. Right to the plea: 27 S.C. 80; 20 S.C. 392; 65 S.C. 190; 76 S.C. 72. Defendant may enter plea and have it, and the proof submitted to the jury as an issue of fact: Const. S.C. 1895, art. I, pars. 5, 17, 18, 25; 76 S.C. 72. Mr. Ira C. Blackwood, Solicitor, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

STATE v. WYATT.

January 31, 1921. The following order was handed down

PER CURIAM:

There was a mistrial in this case, and the appeal is from an order of the Circuit Court overruling the defendant's plea of former jeopardy.

The case involves a construction of the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. No argument was filed by the solicitor.

As there has not been any final judgment, the ruling of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is not appealable. State v. Byars, 79 S.C. 174, 60 S.E. 448, and cases therein cited.

Appeal dismissed.

MR. JUSTICE GAGE did not participate.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

STATE v. WYATT.

Comments