Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-263 - State v. Fields

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Anthony Fields, Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
 James W. Johnson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-263
Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 2, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R. J. Shupe, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Anthony Fields appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary and petit larceny.  Fields argues he was denied due process of law when the solicitor, in her opening statement, questioned Fields' decision to go to trial given the evidence.  However, he has not shown that, under the circumstances, this single remark so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.  Prior to opening statements and after closing statements, the trial court instructed the State bore the burden of proof.  Furthermore, the State presented strong evidence in the form of Fields' confession and matching DNA and fingerprints.  We affirm[1] pursuant to the following authorities:  State v. Reese, 370 S.C. 31, 38, 633 S.E.2d 898, 901-02 (2006) ("In order to constitute reversible error, it must be shown that the argument so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338, 503 S.E.2d 164, 166 (1998) ("On appeal, the appellate court will view the alleged impropriety of the solicitor's argument in the context of the entire record . . . . ").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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