Court Opinion

ID: 9574982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:10:22.231605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:43.195257
License: Public Domain

Oxner, Justice
(concurring).
While a few courts adopt the view that sequestration of witnesses is demandable as of right, in most jurisdictions the question is left to the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review and reversal upon a showing of abuse of discretion. See annotation 32 A. L. R. (2d), beginning on page 358. The majority rule is followed in South Carolina. State v. O’Neal, 210 S. C. 305, 42 S. E. (2d) 523; State v. Ferguson, 221 S. C. 300, 70 S. E. (2d) 355. A motion for sequestration should rarely be denied in capital and other serious criminal cases. Huffman v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 524, 39 S. E. (2d) 291. Such motion, however, “should be specific and be supported by some reason." Commonwealth v. Turner, 371 Pa. 417, 88 A. (2d) 915, 921, 32 A. L. R. (2d) 346.
I agree that under the exceptional circumstances presented in the instant case, the refusal of appellant’s motion was an abuse of discretion and constitutes reversible error. While counsel should have stated some reason for their motion or made some showing as to a need for sequestration of the witnesses, a failure to do so will not be permitted to prejudice an accused in a case involving the death penalty.
Stukes and Legge, JJ., concur.