 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Staten3/7/2005
ee Burkhart, 350 S.C. at 263, 565 S.E.2d at 304.
Dushun never requested a charge on mere suspicion before the trial court actually administered the charge. Furthermore, he did not request such an instruction after the trial court had charged the jury with the law. The trial court did not have an opportunity to rule upon the objection. See State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 444, 513 S.E.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1999) (to preserve objection to jury charge, defendant must raise the issue at trial). In addition, Rule 20(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
Notwithstanding any request for legal instructions, the parties shall be given the opportunity to object to the giving or failure to give an instruction before the jury retires, but out of the hearing of the jury. Any objection shall state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for objection. Failure to object in accordance with this rule shall constitute a waiver of objection.
Therefore, the issue is not preserved for appeal. Furthermore, although Lucius objected to the trial court's alleged failure to include a charge on mere suspicion, an appellant may not preserve an issue for appeal by way of a co-defendant's objection. See State v. Carriker, 269 S.C. 553, 555, 238 S.E.2d 678, 678 (1977) ("While appellant's co-defendant did object, the appellant may not utilize the objection of another defendant to gain review.").
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Dushun's convictions are AFFIRMED.
BEATTY and SHORT, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|