State v. Alexander
Decision Date | 25 July 2018 |
Docket Number | 2018-UP-335 |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Samuel Edward Alexander, Jr., Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-000421 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
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.
Submitted May 1, 2018
Appeal From Chesterfield County Roger E. Henderson, Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Taylor D. Gilliam, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, and Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, all of Columbia, and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent.
Samuel Alexander, Jr. appeals his conviction of grand larceny, for which he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Alexander maintains the circuit court erred by (1) failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict and (2) giving a jury charge on possession of recently stolen property that contained burden-shifting instructions. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court properly denied Alexander's directed verdict motion: State v. Weston, 367 S.C 279, 292, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (); State v. Odems, 395 S.C. 582 586, 720 S.E.2d 48, 50 (2011) (); State v. Pearson, 415 S.C. 463, 473, 783 S.E.2d 802, 807 (2016) ; State v. Rogers, 405 S.C. 554, 571, 748 S.E.2d 265, 274 (Ct. App. 2013) (); Odems, 395 S.C. at 586, 720 S.E.2d at 50 ().
2. As to whether the circuit court properly instructed the jury on the law of possession of recently stolen property: State v. Brandenburg, 419 S.C. 346, 349, 797 S.E.2d 416, 418 (Ct. App. 2017) ; id. ; State v. Simmons 384 S.C. 145, 178, 682 S.E.2d 19, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) ("In reviewing jury charges for erro r, [an app el late court] must consider the circuit court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Kinard, 373 S.C. 500, 503, 646 S.E.2d 168, 169 (Ct. App. 2007) (); State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 583 (2010) ; Brandenburg, 419 S.C. at 349, 797 S.E.2d at 418 ; Mattison, 388 S.C. at 478, 697 S.E.2d at 583 ; State v. Dewitt, 254 S.C. 527, 530, 176 S.E.2d 143, 145 (1970), (he is the thief), there is an inference or presumption of fact that arises when an individual is found in possession of recently stolen property that overruled on other grounds by State v. Cooper, 279 S.C. 301, 302, 306 S.E.2d 598, 599 (1983); id. at 532, 176 S.E.2d at 146 (); id. (); Cooper, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial