From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Dantzler

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 1, 2016
Appellate Case No. 2015-000192 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 2016)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2015-000192 Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-241

06-01-2016

The State, Respondent, v. Oscar Lee Dantzler, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.


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 Lexington County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Lynch, 375 S.C. 628, 632, 654 S.E.2d 292, 294 (Ct. App. 2007) ("In criminal cases, this [c]ourt reviews errors of law only."); State v. Bryant, 354 S.C. 390, 395, 581 S.E.2d 157, 160 (2003) ("The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee a defendant a fair trial by a panel of impartial and indifferent jurors."); United States v. Coward, 669 F.2d 180, 184 (4th Cir. 1982) (finding no error in the trial court's decision to send an unredacted copy of the indictment to the jury during deliberations, even though the court omitted references to a co-defendant when reading the indictment to the jury at the beginning of trial, because the trial court informed the jury of the omissions and instructed the jury that the indictment did not constitute evidence, thereby "effectively offset[ting] any hypothetical prejudice resulting from the jury's receipt of the unedited indictment"). AFFIRMED. HUFF, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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


Summaries of

State v. Dantzler

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Jun 1, 2016
Appellate Case No. 2015-000192 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Dantzler

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Oscar Lee Dantzler, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 1, 2016

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2015-000192 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 1, 2016)