From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Burgess

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Dec 19, 2012
2012-UP-664 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-664

12-19-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Kevin Burgess, Appellant. Appellate No. 2010-176347

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted November 1, 2012

Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor E.L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Kevin Burgess appeals his conviction of assault with intent to kill, arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his request for a mistrial for witness "pitting" and (2) refusing to issue a jury charge under section 16-11-440 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011), the Protection of Persons and Property Act. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in denying Burgess's motion for a mistrial for witness "pitting": State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216, 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009) ("The grant of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure which should be taken only where an incident is so grievous that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("Generally, a curative instruction to disregard the testimony is deemed to have cured any alleged error.").

2. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to issue a jury charge under the Protection of Persons and Property Act: State v. Commander, 396 S.C. 254, 270, 721 S.E.2d 413, 422 (2011) ("A jury charge is correct if, when the charge is read as a whole, it contains the correct definition and adequately covers the law."); id. ("To warrant reversal, a trial [court's] refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant.").

AFFIRMED.

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

SHORT, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Burgess

Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Dec 19, 2012
2012-UP-664 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Burgess

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Kevin Burgess, Appellant. Appellate No…

Court:Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Date published: Dec 19, 2012

Citations

2012-UP-664 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2012)