STATE v. MAES

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

11361

Attorney(S)

Mr. George F. VonKolnitz, for appellant, cites: Suspended sentence 27 Stat., 773; 115 S.E., 742; Circuit Judge may not decide whether crime has been committed without aid of jury; 107 S.C. 414: Search and seizure; 232 U.S. 394; 251 U.S. 385; 255 U.S. 298; 277 Fed., 939. Mr. Thomas P. Stoney, Solicitor for the State, cites: Defendant not entitled to jury trial on question of violation of suspended sentence; 107 S.C. 345; 108 S.C. 455; 109 S.C. 406; 114 S.C. 445; 107 S.C. 413; 115 S.E., 744. Evidence obtained in unauthorized search may be used against accused; 40 S.C. 363; 107 S.C. 304; 94 S.C. 339; 1 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 254; 112 S.C. 389; 120 S.C. 290; 110 S.E., 212; 114 S.C. 317; 115 S.E., 636.

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

11361

Attorney(S)

Mr. George F. VonKolnitz, for appellant, cites: Suspended sentence 27 Stat., 773; 115 S.E., 742; Circuit Judge may not decide whether crime has been committed without aid of jury; 107 S.C. 414: Search and seizure; 232 U.S. 394; 251 U.S. 385; 255 U.S. 298; 277 Fed., 939. Mr. Thomas P. Stoney, Solicitor for the State, cites: Defendant not entitled to jury trial on question of violation of suspended sentence; 107 S.C. 345; 108 S.C. 455; 109 S.C. 406; 114 S.C. 445; 107 S.C. 413; 115 S.E., 744. Evidence obtained in unauthorized search may be used against accused; 40 S.C. 363; 107 S.C. 304; 94 S.C. 339; 1 Greenl. Ev., Sec. 254; 112 S.C. 389; 120 S.C. 290; 110 S.E., 212; 114 S.C. 317; 115 S.E., 636.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

STATE v. MAES.

December 7, 1923. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. JUSTICE COTHRAN.

The elaborate and lucid decree of Judge Smith in this case, renders further discussion of the questions raised a work of supererogation. For the reasons assigned by him, the judgment is affirmed. Let the order be reported.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

STATE v. MAES.

Comments