State v. Esaw

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Esaw

DecidedNovember 6, 2019

Docket2019-UP-353

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Esaw (State v. Esaw) 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. Esaw, (S.C. Ct. App. 2019).

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.

Ricky Lamont Esaw, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002213

Appeal From Lexington County Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-353 Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Assistant Attorney General W. Joseph Maye, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010) ("The trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina."); S.C. Const. art. V, § 21 ("[Trial courts] shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law."); State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 77, 770 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2015) ("[The defendant's] request to charge the jury that '[i]dentification by a person of a different race may be less reliable than identification by a person of the same race' would have been improper because it would have asked the jury to place less weight on [the v]ictim's testimony because he was of a different race than [defendant].").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, 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.

Ricky Lamont Esaw, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002213

Appeal From Lexington County Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-353 Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 6, 2019

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Assistant Attorney General W. Joseph Maye, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support."); State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010) ("The trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina."); S.C. Const. art. V, § 21 ("[Trial courts] shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law."); State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 77, 770 S.E.2d 424, 431 (2015) ("[The defendant's] request to charge the jury that '[i]dentification by a person of a different race may be less reliable than identification by a person of the same race' would have been improper because it would have asked the jury to place less weight on [the v]ictim's testimony because he was of a different race than [defendant].").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, 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. Esaw, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-esaw-scctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack