State v. Bishop

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Douglas Bret Bishop, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 11, 2014

Appellate Case No. 2012-212240 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2014)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2012-212240 Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-217

06-11-2014

The State, Respondent, v. Douglas Bret Bishop, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

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 Union County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Logan, 405 S.C. 83, 90, 747 S.E.2d 444, 448 (2013) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, this [c]ourt considers the trial court's jury charge as a whole and in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); 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."); 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."). AFFIRMED.¹

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

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.