State v. Dodd

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Dodd

DecidedApril 2, 2014

Docket2014-UP-151

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Dodd (State v. Dodd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dodd, (S.C. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

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.

Antonio Lee Dodd, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-209187

Appeal From Greenville County Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-151 Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed April 2, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury on "the hand of one is the hand of all" because the State failed to charge Dodd's alleged co-defendant: State v. Massey, 267 S.C. 432, 229 S.E.2d 332, 339 (1976) (adopting the reasoning "[i]f failure to apprehend the principal, his death or acquittal necessitates acquittal of the accessory, then our statute is no improvement over the common law. . . .").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury on "the hand of one is the hand of all" because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support such a charge: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Niles, 400 S.C. 527, 533, 735 S.E.2d 240, 243 (Ct. App. 2012) ("If any evidence supports a jury charge, the [trial] court should grant the request."); State v. Grippon, 327 S.C. 79, 84, 489 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1997) (noting the law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Antonio Lee Dodd, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-209187

Appeal From Greenville County Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-151 Submitted February 1, 2014 – Filed April 2, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury on "the hand of one is the hand of all" because the State failed to charge Dodd's alleged co-defendant: State v. Massey, 267 S.C. 432, 229 S.E.2d 332, 339 (1976) (adopting the reasoning "[i]f failure to apprehend the principal, his death or acquittal necessitates acquittal of the accessory, then our statute is no improvement over the common law. . . .").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in charging the jury on "the hand of one is the hand of all" because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support such a charge: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Niles, 400 S.C. 527, 533, 735 S.E.2d 240, 243 (Ct. App. 2012) ("If any evidence supports a jury charge, the [trial] court should grant the request."); State v. Grippon, 327 S.C. 79, 84, 489 S.E.2d 462, 464 (1997) (noting the law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Dodd, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dodd-scctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack