State v. Lewis
Decision Date | 19 August 2020 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-246,Appellate Case No. 2017-000482 |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Brian Willie Lewis, Appellant. |
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.
Appeal From Greenville County
Brian M. Gibbons, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, and Appellate Defender Adam Sinclair Ruffin, all of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Brian Willie Lewis appeals from his convictions for armed robbery, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, conspiracy, and resisting arrest asserting the trial court erred in (1) including "searching for the truth" language in its reasonable doubt charge, (2) declining to charge his requested jury instructions on identification and credibility, and (3) admitting his out-of-court statements because they were not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in including "searching for the truth" language in its reasonable doubt charge: State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27, 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) (); id. (); State v. Pradubsri, 420 S.C. 629, 640-41, 803 S.E.2d 724, 730 (Ct. App. 2017) ( ); Todd v. State, 355 S.C. 396, 402-03, 585 S.E.2d 305, 308-09 (2003) (the trial court's instructions in an unconstitutional way because the trial court "used alternative methods of describing the [reasonable doubt] standard," and "the trial careful and exhaustive articulation of the reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence standard, when examined in its entirety, effectively communicated the high burden of proof that the state was required to establish by the Constitution") , despite the use of truth-seeking language, there was no reasonable likelihood jurors applied .
2. As to whether the trial court erred in declining to charge appellant's requested jury instructions on identification: Barber v. State, 393 S.C. 232, 236, 712 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2011) ; State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011)) ("A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law." (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318, 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App. 2003))); State v. Burkhart, 350 S.C. 252, 261, 565 S.E.2d 298, 303 (2002) () id. ("[T]o warrant reversal, a trial refusal to give a requested charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial."); State v. Green, 412 S.C. 65, 76-77, 770 S.E.2d 424, 430 (Ct. App. 2015) ( ); id. at 78, 770 S.E.2d at 431 .
3. As to whether the trial court erred in declining to charge appellant's requested jury instructions on credibility: Barber, 393 S.C. at 236, 712 S.E.2d at 438 ; id. ; Brandt, 393 S.C. at 549, 713 S.E.2d at 603 ; id. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial