State v. Glover

CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina
DecidedJanuary 11, 2017
Docket2017-UP-025
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Glover (State v. Glover) 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. Glover, (S.C. Ct. App. 2017).

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.

David Glover, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001144

Appeal From Aiken County Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-025 Submitted October 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Susan Ranee Saunders, both of Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 550, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court]'s decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Wilder v. State, 388 S.C. 282, 285, 696 S.E.2d 587, 588 (2010) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling lacks evidentiary support or where it is controlled by an error of law."); State v. Harrison, 343 S.C. 165, 173, 539 S.E.2d 71, 75 (Ct. App. 2000) ("To warrant reversal, a trial [court]'s refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial."); State v. Barksdale, 311 S.C. 210, 216, 428 S.E.2d 498, 502 (Ct. App. 1993) ("When a jury requests an additional charge, it is sufficient for the court to charge only those matters necessary to answer the jury's request." (emphasis added)); State v. Anderson, 322 S.C. 89, 94, 470 S.E.2d 103, 106 (1996) (finding "the recharge was properly limited to answering the jury's question").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, 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

Related

Wilder v. State
696 S.E.2d 587 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2010)
State v. Barksdale
428 S.E.2d 498 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1993)
State v. Harrison
539 S.E.2d 71 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2000)
State v. Brandt
713 S.E.2d 591 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2011)
State v. Anderson
470 S.E.2d 103 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Glover, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-glover-scctapp-2017.