State v. Green ( 2010 )

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.

Mack Green, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Hampton County
Howard P. King, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-253
Submitted April 1, 2010 – Filed April 26, 2010

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, And Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor I. McDuffie Stone, III, of Beaufort, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mack Green appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. On appeal, Green argues the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 20(b), SCRCrimP ("Notwithstanding any request for legal instructions, the parties shall be given the opportunity to object to the giving or failure to give an instruction before the jury retires, but out of the hearing of the jury. . . . Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection.");  State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 118, 481 S.E.2d 118, 122 (1997) (finding the trial court erred in refusing to give a charge requested after the charge conference and holding a party can ask for further instructions after the charge conference); State v. Kelly, 372 S.C. 167, 171, 641 S.E.2d 468, 470 (Ct. App. 2007) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion.  The requesting party must have been prejudiced by the trial court's failure to give the instruction in order to warrant reversal on appeal.").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER and GEATHERS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.