Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-MO-016 - State v. Goode

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 Supreme Court

The State, Respondent,

v.

Demetris Antwan Goode, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenwood County
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2011-MO-016
Heard June 8, 2011 – Filed July 5, 2011


AFFRIMED


C. Rauch Wise, of Greenwood, for Appellant

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia, Jerry W. Peace, Eighth Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Greenwood, for Respondent


PER CURIAM:  Appellant Demetris Antwan Goode appeals his conviction for cocaine trafficking and possession.  Goode maintains that the circuit court erred by: (1) charging the jury on a lesser-included offense of trafficking between ten and twenty-eight grams of cocaine; (2) failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict; (3) failing to use his proposed jury charges; and (4) failing to require the State to open fully on the law and the facts during its closing argument.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. Lesser-included charge: State v. Gosnell, 341 S.C. 627, 637, 535 S.E.2d 453, 459 (Ct. App. 2000) ("Conspiracy to traffic in an amount of cocaine contained within a lesser sentencing level than that alleged in the indictment may be proper where the amount involved in the object of the conspiracy is in controversy."). 

2.  Directed Verdict: State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 97, 544 S.E.2d 30, 36 (2001).   ("If there is any direct evidence or substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, we must find the case was properly submitted to the jury.").

3.  Jury Charges: S.C. Const. Art. V, Sec. 21("Judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law."); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 319, 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (2003) ("A jury charge which is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal."); State v. Smith, 288 S.C. 329, 331, 342 S.E.2d 600, 601 (1986) (holding that the circuit court's jury charge may not contain any language which "tends to indicate his opinion as to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the guilt of the accused or as to controverted facts").

4.  State's Closing Argument: State v. Lee, 255 S.C. 309, 318, 178 S.E.2d 652, 656 (1971) (holding that a solicitor is not required to open a closing argument on issues of fact).

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.