Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-113 - State v. Eaglin

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.

Adrian Eaglin, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-113
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed February 29, 2012


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Adrian Eaglin appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the jury charge unconstitutionally relieved the State of its burden of proving malice.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Barber v. State, 393 S.C. 232, 236, 712 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2011) ("In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the [trial] court's jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial."); State v. Commander, Op. No. 27062 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Oct. 31, 2011) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 38 at 43, 59) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion." (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Bell, 305 S.C. 11, 19, 406 S.E.2d 165, 170 (1991) (explaining malice defined as "the doing of a wrongful act intentionally and without just cause or excuse" is the correct statement of law and devoid of any presumption (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.


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