Opinion ID: 1296990
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In Favorem Vitae Review

Text: I disagree with the majority's conclusion that this appeal is not subject to in favorem vitae review. In State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991), a majority of the Court held the doctrine inapplicable in all trials beginning after the date of this opinion.... (emphasis added). As the majority acknowledges, this trial began on the date of the opinion. By its own terms, Torrence is inapplicable here. The majority, however, relies on the fact the solicitor `advised' the trial judge and appellant's lawyers of the Torrence opinion on the morning it was filed. What the solicitor did not do, however, was produce a copy of the opinion, indicate its effective date, or inform appellant's attorneys that in abolishing the doctrine, this Court adopted a contemporaneous objection rule. The solicitor's action cannot and should not be used to overcome this Court's clear mandate. Unequivocally, this appeal must be reviewed in favorem vitae. State v. Torrence, supra .