Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-039 - State v. Brockington

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Montrell Brockington, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No.   2009-UP-039
Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January 15, 2009


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Montrell Brockington was convicted of possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana within proximity of a school or park.  On appeal, Brockington argues the trial court erred when charging the law on constructive possession by failing to instruct the jury it was free to accept or reject the permissive inference of knowledge and possession.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318, 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App. 2003) (“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. at 318-19, 577 S.E.2d at 464 (“The substance of the law is what must be charged to the jury, not any particular verbiage.”).

AFFIRMED.

Huff, Thomas, and Lockemy, JJ., concur.


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