State v. Dantzler

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: June 1, 2016
• Docket: 2016-UP-241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Oscar Lee Dantzler, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000192

Appeal From Lexington County Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-241 Submitted January 1, 2016 – Filed June 1, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lynch, 375 S.C. 628, 632, 654 S.E.2d 292, 294 (Ct. App. 2007) ("In criminal cases, this [c]ourt reviews errors of law only."); State v. Bryant, 354 S.C. 390, 395, 581 S.E.2d 157, 160 (2003) ("The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee a defendant a fair trial by a panel of impartial and indifferent jurors."); United States v. Coward, 669 F.2d 180, 184 (4th Cir. 1982) (finding no error in the trial court's decision to send an unredacted copy of the indictment to the jury during deliberations, even though the court omitted references to a co-defendant when reading the indictment to the jury at the beginning of trial, because the trial court informed the jury of the omissions and instructed the jury that the indictment did not constitute evidence, thereby "effectively offset[ting] any hypothetical prejudice resulting from the jury's receipt of the unedited indictment").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.