State v. Somerset

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Somerset

277 S.E.2d 593, 276 S.C. 220, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 343

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedApril 21, 1981

Docket21433

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 277 S.E.2d 593 (State v. Somerset) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Somerset, 277 S.E.2d 593, 276 S.C. 220, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 343 (S.C. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

Ness, Justice.

Appellant Ronald John Somerset was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to include a verdict of not guilty in its forms of verdict. We disagree.

Although the better practice is to submit a verdict of not guilty, the law to be charged must be determined from the evidence presented. State v. Rogers, S. C., 272 S. E. (2d) 792 (1980).

Here, appellant relied on an insanity defense throughout his trial, he conceded he shot the deceased in the back, therefore, there was no real issue as to what occurred. The only possible verdicts the jury could return based on the evidence were “Guilty of Murder” or “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” Under the facts of this case the trial judge’s failure to submit a general verdict of not guilty was not reversible error.

Appellant next asserts that during cross-examination the solicitor impermissibly addressed the commitment and release procedure used when someone has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant failed to make a timely objection to the solicitor’s first question concerning release and he has waived his right to raise this error on appeal. State v. Goolsby, S. C., 268 S. E. (2d) 31 (1980). The solicitor withdrew his second question, the appellant’s objection and motion to strike is therefore moot.

[222]*222Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are dismissed pursuant to Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, J., concur. Gregory and Harwell, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ness, Justice.

Appellant Ronald John Somerset was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to include a verdict of not guilty in its forms of verdict. We disagree.

Although the better practice is to submit a verdict of not guilty, the law to be charged must be determined from the evidence presented. State v. Rogers, S. C., 272 S. E. (2d) 792 (1980).

Here, appellant relied on an insanity defense throughout his trial, he conceded he shot the deceased in the back, therefore, there was no real issue as to what occurred. The only possible verdicts the jury could return based on the evidence were “Guilty of Murder” or “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.” Under the facts of this case the trial judge’s failure to submit a general verdict of not guilty was not reversible error.

Appellant next asserts that during cross-examination the solicitor impermissibly addressed the commitment and release procedure used when someone has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant failed to make a timely objection to the solicitor’s first question concerning release and he has waived his right to raise this error on appeal. State v. Goolsby, S. C., 268 S. E. (2d) 31 (1980). The solicitor withdrew his second question, the appellant’s objection and motion to strike is therefore moot.

[222]*222Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are dismissed pursuant to Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, J., concur. Gregory and Harwell, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 S.E.2d 593, 276 S.C. 220, 1981 S.C. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-somerset-sc-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack