Fortune v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Jarrard v. Martell

    C/A 5:23-2588-SAL-KDW (D.S.C. Sep. 16, 2024)

    To find whether a prosecutor's comments in closing argument violated a defendant's due process rights, the Court must determine whether the comments were improper, and if so, whether the improper argument so unfairly prejudiced the defendant as to deny him a fair trial. Fortune v. State, 428 S.C. 545, 549, 837 S.E.2d 37, 39 (2019).

  2. In re Oxner

    440 S.C. 5 (S.C. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    First, "nolle prosequi" is not a term of art; it is simply an archaic way to describe a dismissal without prejudice. SeeFortune v. State , 428 S.C. 545, 551 n.1, 837 S.E.2d 37, 40 n.1 (2019) (" ‘Nolle prosse’ is a shortened version of the archaic Latin term ‘nolle prosequi.’

  3. State v. Busse

    439 S.C. 104 (S.C. 2023)

    We expect solicitors to "prosecute with earnestness and vigor" on behalf of the State. Fortune v. State , 428 S.C. 545, 552, 837 S.E.2d 37, 41 (2019) (quoting Berger v. United States , 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S. Ct. 629, 633, 79 L. Ed. 1314, 1321 (1935) ). A prosecutor arguing forcefully during closing argument that the jury should believe a particular witness is well within her proper role as a zealous advocate, so long as the argument is based on evidence admitted during trial. Zealous advocacy crosses the line and becomes improper vouching, however, when the prosecutor indicates to the jury—even implicitly—that her argument as to the credibility of a witness is based on anything other than the evidence admitted.

  4. State v. Steadman

    No. 2023-UP-144 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2023)

    ("A review of a solicitor's closing argument is based upon the standard of whether his comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."); Fortune v. State, 428 S.C. 545, 549, 837 S.E.2d 37, 39 (2019) ("To find whether the assistant solicitor's comments in closing argument violated the defendant's due process rights, we must determine whether the comments were improper, and if so, whether the improper argument so unfairly prejudiced the defendant as to deny him a fair trial.").