State v. Green

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: LEWIS; HARWELL
• Citation: State v. Green, 278 S.C. 239, 294 S.E.2d 335 (S.C. 1982)
• Decision Date: 20 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 21761,21761
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Ernest GREEN, Presley Chavis, and Wilbur DuPree, of whom Ernest Green is, Appellant.

Page 335

294 S.E.2d 335

278 S.C. 239

The STATE, Respondent, v. Ernest GREEN, Presley Chavis, and Wilbur DuPree, of whom Ernest Green is, Appellant.

No. 21761.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 20, 1982.

Asst. Appellate Defender William Isaac Diggs, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen., Lindy P. Funkhouser and Martha L. McElveen, Columbia, and Sol. J. DuPre Miller, Darlington, for respondent.

LEWIS, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty (20) years. He appeals alleging that the trial judge erred in refusing (1) to grant a continuance, (2) to quash the indictment, and (3) to grant a request to instruct the jury as to their consideration of evidence relative to good character. We affirm.

Appellant was one of three (3) defendants charged with armed robbery; one pled guilty to robbery, and appellant and the other codefendant, Presley Chavis, were jointly tried and convicted of armed robbery. The conviction of Chavis was affirmed in a separate appeal. State v. Chavis, S.C., 290 S.E.2d 412.

The exceptions charging error in the refusal of the motions for continuance and to quash the indictment are clearly without merit and are dismissed under Rule 23 of the Rules of Practice of this Court.

The remaining question concerns the refusal of the trial judge to instruct the jury, as requested, that evidence of good character alone may be sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Generally, where requested and there is evidence of good character, a defendant is entitled to an instruction to the effect that evidence of good character and good reputation may in and of itself create a doubt as to guilt and should be considered by the jury, along with all the other evidence, in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant....