Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-304 - State v. Winchester

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.

Billy Walter Winchester, Appellant.


Appeal From Oconee County
Alexander S. Macaulay, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-304 
Submitted June 1, 2011 – Filed June 17, 2011


AFFIRMED


 Appellate Defender Elizabeth Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Billy Walter Winchester appeals his conviction for resisting arrest with a deadly weapon, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) denying Winchester's motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the State failed to prove he possessed the requisite mens rea; and (2) denying Winchester's request for a jury charge that Winchester did not know police officers were attempting to serve an arrest warrant on him.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in denying Winchester's motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the State failed to prove he possessed the requisite mens rea:  State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 292-93, 625 S.E.2d 641, 648 (2006) (holding in the review of the denial of a defendant's directed verdict motion "if there is any direct evidence or any substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the accused, the [appellate c]ourt must find the case was properly submitted to the jury"). 

2.  As to whether the circuit court erred in denying Winchester's request for a jury charge:  State v. Robinson, 306 S.C. 399, 401, 412 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1991) ("The [circuit court] must charge the jury with the 'current and correct law' of the State.");  State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("To warrant reversal, [the circuit court's] refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur. 


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