State v. Hartzell

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: February 27, 2004
• Docket: 2004-UP-136
• Status: Unpublished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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Donald L. Hartzell, Jr.,        Appellant.

---

Appeal From Colleton County
Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-136
Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed February 27, 2004

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, of Columbia; and Solicitor Randolph Murdaugh, III, of Hampton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1998) (holding when a defendant fails to request a jury charge at trial, the defendant cannot argue on appeal that the circuit court erred by failing to charge the jury); State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 411, 523 S.E.2d 466, 467 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding where the circuit court gives the jury a curative or supplemental instruction, “[n]o issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge’s ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial”); State v. Chapman, 336 S.C. 149, 153, 519 S.E.2d 100, 102 (1999) (“A homicide will be excusable on the ground of accident when (1) the killing was unintentional, (2) the defendant was acting lawfully, and (3) due care was exercised in the handling of the weapon.”). 

AFFIRMED. ^[1]

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.

---

^[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.