State v. Partain ( 2012 )

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.

Alexander Partain, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-311
Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed May 16. 2012   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Alexander Partain appeals his conviction for discharging a firearm into a vehicle, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) instructing the jury that its job was "to search for the truth" and (2) not allowing Partain to reply to the State's closing argument on the facts.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in instructing the jury that its job was "to search for the truth": State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27, 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("[J]ury instructions should be considered as a whole, and if as a whole they are free from error, any isolated portions which may be misleading do not constitute reversible error.  The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution.").

2. As to whether the circuit court erred in not allowing Partain to reply to the State's closing argument on the facts: State v. Pinkard, 365 S.C. 541, 543-44, 617 S.E.2d 397, 398 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the State has the right to make the final closing argument in a criminal case if the defendant presents evidence).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

---

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