# State v. Brown

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · February 13, 1985 · 284 S.C. 407

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583429

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE, Respondent, v. Roscoe James BROWN, Petitioner; The STATE, Respondent, v. Michael BRAXTON, Appellant; The STATE, Respondent, v. Michael T. BRAXTON, Roscoe J. Brown, and Mark Vaughn, of Whom Mark Vaughn Is, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** February 13, 1985
- **Citations:** 284 S.C. 407; 326 S.E.2d 410; 1985 S.C. LEXIS 327
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ness
- **Judges:** Ness, Littlejohn
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583429

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding castration, which the Court described as "a form of mutilation," constituted cruel or unusual punishment that is prohibited by article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution, even though such punishment had been deemed permissible in other jurisdictions under…
- holding castration is a form of mutilation and that mutilation as punishment for a criminal offense is prohibited by article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution
- holding trial courts are “allowed a wide, but not unlimited, discretion in imposing conditions of suspension or probation and they cannot impose conditions which are illegal and void as against public policy”
- holding judges are “allowed a wide, but not unlimited, discretion in imposing conditions of suspension or probation and they cannot impose conditions which are illegal and void as against public policy”
- holding mutilation as punishment for a criminal offense violates article I, section 15 of the South Carolina Constitution

## Opinion text

Ness, Justice
(concurring):
I concur that castration as a condition to suspension of the sentence and probation is void. I would hold the thirty year sentence is severable and valid. Resentencing is therefore unnecessary.
Littlejohn, C. J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583429. Public record. Not legal advice.