State v. Robertson

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Robertson

DecidedJune 29, 2016

Docket2016-UP-329

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Robertson (State v. Robertson) 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. Robertson, (S.C. Ct. App. 2016).

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.

Ralpheal L. Robertson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001630

Appeal From Aiken County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-329 Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 29, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, 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. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 22-23, 596 S.E.2d 475, 479 (2004) ("The authority and responsibility of the trial court is to focus the scope of the voir dire examination as set forth in [section 14-7-1020 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015)]."); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-7-1020 ("The court shall, on motion of either party in the suit, examine on oath any person who is called as a juror to know whether he is related to either party, has any interest in the cause, has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein . . . ."); State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 16, 482 S.E.2d 760, 765 (1997) ("The manner in which these questions are pursued and the scope of any additional voir dire are matters of trial court discretion."); Wise, 359 S.C. at 23, 596 S.E.2d at 479 ("[I]t is not enough that a question may be helpful. Rather, the trial court's failure to ask or allow a question must render the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, KONDUROS, 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.

Ralpheal L. Robertson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001630

Appeal From Aiken County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-329 Submitted April 1, 2016 – Filed June 29, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, 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. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 22-23, 596 S.E.2d 475, 479 (2004) ("The authority and responsibility of the trial court is to focus the scope of the voir dire examination as set forth in [section 14-7-1020 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2015)]."); S.C. Code Ann. § 14-7-1020 ("The court shall, on motion of either party in the suit, examine on oath any person who is called as a juror to know whether he is related to either party, has any interest in the cause, has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of any bias or prejudice therein . . . ."); State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 16, 482 S.E.2d 760, 765 (1997) ("The manner in which these questions are pursued and the scope of any additional voir dire are matters of trial court discretion."); Wise, 359 S.C. at 23, 596 S.E.2d at 479 ("[I]t is not enough that a question may be helpful. Rather, the trial court's failure to ask or allow a question must render the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, KONDUROS, 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. Robertson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robertson-scctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack