State v. Hull-Kilgore

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Hull-Kilgore

DecidedSeptember 19, 2012

Docket2012-UP-531

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Hull-Kilgore (State v. Hull-Kilgore) 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. Hull-Kilgore, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

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.

J'Corey Hull-Kilgore, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-162289

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-531 Submitted August 1, 2012 – Filed September 19, 2012

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. __________ PER CURIAM: Affirmed1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter: State v. Norris, 253 S.C. 31, 35, 168 S.E.2d 564, 565 (1969) ("[O]n a trial for murder growing out of the use of a deadly weapon, it is unnecessary to charge the law relating to manslaughter where the testimony fails to suggest any theory upon which a verdict of manslaughter could rest.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the solicitor to impeach Hull- Kilgore with prior convictions: Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 433, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000) ("We decline to hold similar prior convictions inadmissible in all cases. Trial courts must weigh the probative value of the prior convictions against their prejudicial effect to the accused and determine, in their discretion, whether to admit the evidence."); State v. Rollins, 348 S.C. 649, 651-53, 560 S.E.2d 450, 451- 52 (Ct. App. 2002) (allowing introduction of prior convictions for impeachment purposes on nearly identical grounds).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, 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.

J'Corey Hull-Kilgore, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-162289

Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-531 Submitted August 1, 2012 – Filed September 19, 2012

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. __________ PER CURIAM: Affirmed1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter: State v. Norris, 253 S.C. 31, 35, 168 S.E.2d 564, 565 (1969) ("[O]n a trial for murder growing out of the use of a deadly weapon, it is unnecessary to charge the law relating to manslaughter where the testimony fails to suggest any theory upon which a verdict of manslaughter could rest.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the solicitor to impeach Hull- Kilgore with prior convictions: Green v. State, 338 S.C. 428, 433, 527 S.E.2d 98, 101 (2000) ("We decline to hold similar prior convictions inadmissible in all cases. Trial courts must weigh the probative value of the prior convictions against their prejudicial effect to the accused and determine, in their discretion, whether to admit the evidence."); State v. Rollins, 348 S.C. 649, 651-53, 560 S.E.2d 450, 451- 52 (Ct. App. 2002) (allowing introduction of prior convictions for impeachment purposes on nearly identical grounds).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, 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. Hull-Kilgore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hull-kilgore-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack