State v. Esaw ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Ricky Lamont Esaw, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2017-002213
    Appeal From Lexington County
    Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-353
    Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 6, 2019
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
    for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney
    General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy
    Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Assistant
    Attorney General W. Joseph Maye, all of Columbia; and
    Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: State v. Baccus, 
    367 S.C. 41
    , 48, 
    625 S.E.2d 216
    , 220 (2006) ("In
    criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); Clark v.
    Cantrell, 
    339 S.C. 369
    , 389, 
    529 S.E.2d 528
    , 539 (2000) ("An appellate court will
    not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial
    court abused its discretion."); 
    id.
     ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
    court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions,
    is without evidentiary support."); State v. Mattison, 
    388 S.C. 469
    , 479, 
    697 S.E.2d 578
    , 583 (2010) ("The trial court is required to charge only the current and correct
    law of South Carolina."); S.C. Const. art. V, § 21 ("[Trial courts] shall not charge
    juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law."); State v. Green, 
    412 S.C. 65
    , 77, 
    770 S.E.2d 424
    , 431 (2015) ("[The defendant's] request to charge the
    jury that '[i]dentification by a person of a different race may be less reliable than
    identification by a person of the same race' would have been improper because it
    would have asked the jury to place less weight on [the v]ictim's testimony because
    he was of a different race than [defendant].").
    AFFIRMED.1
    SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019-UP-353

Filed Date: 11/6/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024