Opinion
2018-UP-327
07-18-2018
The State, Respondent, v. Joe Ross Worley, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-001497
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent.
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDINGEXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Heard June 20, 2018
Appeal From McCormick County R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge.
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Joe Ross Worley appeals his convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK) and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in (1) ruling Worley was not entitled to immunity from prosecution for ABWIK under the Protection of Persons and Property Act and (2) not granting a mistrial when the solicitor made comments in his closing argument that constituted improper comments on Worley's right not to testify and impermissibly shifted the State's burden of proof to Worley.
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-410 to 450 (2015).
We affirm and adopt the trial court's December 8, 2011 order pertaining to the court's determination that (1) Worley had the burden of proving his claim of immunity by the preponderance of the evidence, which he failed to do, and (2) the solicitor was commenting on the evidence or the lack of evidence in response to information or issues that were placed in the record by Worley and was not burden-shifting or inferring that Worley was guilty because he failed to testify. See Byrd v. Livingston, 398 S.C. 237, 245, 727 S.E.2d 620, 624 (Ct. App. 2012) (adopting the trial court's order as to some issues); Grosshuesch v. Cramer, 367 S.C. 1, 6, 623 S.E.2d 833, 835 (2005) (adopting the reasoning set forth in the trial court's order as to some of the issues on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.