Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2014-000390 Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-111
03-02-2016
The State, Respondent, v. Richard Allen Woodbury, Appellant.
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, 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 Marion County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Richard Allen Woodbury appeals his conviction for voluntary manslaughter, arguing the trial court erred by (1) charging the jury on mutual combat because there was no evidence of a mutual intent and willingness to fight, no evidence Woodbury and the victim knew the other was armed, and no evidence of any ill will or dispute between Woodbury and the victim; and (2) failing to charge the jury on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to the propriety of the trial court's charge on mutual combat: State v. Whipple, 324 S.C. 43, 52, 476 S.E.2d 683, 688 (1996) ("[F]ailure to object to the charge as given, or to request an additional charge when given an opportunity to do so constitutes a waiver of [the defendant's] right to complain on appeal."). 2. As to the trial court's refusal to charge the jury on involuntary manslaughter: State v. Stanko, 402 S.C. 252, 264, 741 S.E.2d 708, 714 (2013) ("This [c]ourt will not reverse a trial court's decision regarding a jury instruction absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Knoten, 347 S.C. 296, 302, 555 S.E.2d 391, 394 (2001) ("The law to be charged must be determined from the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Smith, 315 S.C. 547, 549, 446 S.E.2d 411, 412-13 (1994) ("The trial court may and should refuse to charge on a lesser-included offense where there is no evidence that the defendant committed the lesser rather than the greater offense.").
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.