State v. Hill, 433 S.E.2d 848 (S.C. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Hill, 433 S.E.2d 848 (S.C. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 15× by 9 distinct cases, 2014–2022 · 2 courts→ Stable · …the law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial. at p. 849 ✓ Topic ↗
155 citation events (145 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Leandra Lamont Bright (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Anderson (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Reed (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Wigington v. State (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Rios (2×) also: Cited as authority (quoted)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Mark A. Hailey, Jr.
S.C. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
See Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion."); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) ("The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Morris, 307 S.C. 480, 483 , 415 S.E.2d 819 , 821 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the trial court properly denied an involuntary manslaughter charge where the evidence showed the defendant intentionally pulled his pistol and fired at th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Jermaine D. Grier
S.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
See State v. Curry, 410 S.C. 46 , 52, 762 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2014) (stating an appellate court "will not reverse a [trial] court's decision to deny a specific request to charge unless the [trial] court committed an error of law"); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) ("The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Dantonio, 376 S.C. 594, 608 , 658 S.E.2d 337, 345 (Ct. App. 2008) ("A trial court has a duty to give a requested instruction that is supported by the evidence and correctly states the law applicable to …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lance Antonio Brewton
S.C. Ct. App. · 2022 · confidence medium
"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial." State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 261-62 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) (quoting State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Montrelle Lamont Cambell
S.C. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial." State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) (quoting State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Marshall
S.C. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial." State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ceaser
S.C. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
The "task of the trial court in deciding whether to charge the lesser offense . . . is to examine the record to determine if there is evidence upon which the jury could find the defendant was guilty of the lesser offense, but not guilty of the greater offense." Golston, 399 S.C. at 398, 732 S.E.2d at 178. "[A] trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence." State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Bethel
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See State v. Stanko, 402 S.C. 252, 264 , 741 S.E.2d 708, 714 (2013) ("[An appellate court] will not reverse a trial court's decision regarding a jury instruction absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Lemire, 406 S.C. 558, 565 , 753 S.E.2d 247, 251 (Ct. App. 2013) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support." (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000))); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 261-62 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The law to be…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Glenn
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter: Sheppard v. State, 357 S.C. 646, 665 , 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004) ("[T]he trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina); id. at 665 , 594 S.E.2d at 472-73 ("A jury charge is correct if it contains the correct definition of the law when read as a whole."); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating that in reviewing a jury charge for error, this court must consider the trial court's jury charge as a whole in light of the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Yeargin
S.C. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on defense of others: Sheppard v. State, 357 S.C. 646, 665 , 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004) ("[T]he trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina."); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) ("The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial."); State v. Williams, 400 S.C. 308, 314 , 733 S.E.2d 605 , 608–09 (Ct. App. 2012) ("When reviewing the [trial] court's refusal to deliver a requested jury instruction, appellate courts must consid…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cook v. State
S.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
“The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993). “[D]ue process requires that a lesser included offense instruction be given only when the evidence warrants such an instruction.” Hopper v. Evans, 456 U.S. 605, 611 , 102 S.Ct. 2049 , 72 L.Ed.2d 367 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Scott (2×)
S.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
We disagree. "'The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.'" State v. Sams, 410 S.C. 303, 308 , 764 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2014) (quoting State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Niles (2×)
S.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
“The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Niles
S.C. · 2015 · confidence medium
"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial." State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Matheny
S.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
PER CURIAM: We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Gilmore, 396 S.C. 72, 77 , 719 S.E.2d 688, 690 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[I]n the context of a trial court's decision not to charge a requested lesser- included offense, we review the trial court's decision de novo."); Sheppard v. State, 357 S.C. 646, 665 , 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004) ("In general, the trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina."); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) ("The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sams (2×)
S.C. · 2014 · confidence medium
"The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial." State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Brayboy
S.C. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Care & Treatment of Canupp
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Mattison
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Dantonio
S.C. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
State v. Knoten, 347 S.C. 296, 302 , 555 S.E.2d 391, 394 (2001); State v. Cole, 338 S.C. 97, 101 , 525 S.E.2d 511, 512 (2000); State v. Condrey, 349 S.C. 184, 194 , 562 S.E.2d 320, 325 (Ct.App.2002); State v. Harrison, 343 S.C. 165, 172 , 539 S.E.2d 71, 74 (Ct.App.2000) (citing State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lee-Grigg
S.C. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
State v. Knoten, 347 S.C. 296, 302 , 555 S.E.2d 391, 394 (2001); State v. Cole, 338 S.C. 97, 101 , 525 S.E.2d 511, 512 (2000); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Condrey, 349 S.C. 184, 194 , 562 S.E.2d 320, 325 (Ct.App.2002); State v. Harrison, 343 S.C. 165, 172 , 539 S.E.2d 71, 74 (Ct.App.2000) citing State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Santiago (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
Jackson v. State, 355 S.C. 568, 570-71 , 586 S.E.2d 562, 562 (2003); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 416 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 434 (2000); State v. Bryant, 336 S.C. 340, 344-45 , 520 S.E.2d 319, 321-22 (1999); State v. Wiggins, 330 S.C. 538, 545 , 500 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1998); State v. Long, 325 S.C. 59, 62 , 480 S.E.2d 62, 63 (1997); State v. Bruno, 322 S.C. 534, 536 , 473 S.E.2d 450, 451 (1996); State v. Goodson, 312 S.C. 278, 280 , 440 S.E.2d 370, 372 (1994); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993); Robinson v. State, 308 S.C. 74, 79 , 417 S.E.2d 88, 91 (1992); State v. Fuller, …
cited Cited as authority (rule) Patton Ex Rel. Estate of Diem v. Reames
S.C. · 2005 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Brown
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
“The *262 law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. White
S.C. · 2004 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) (a trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Frazier v. Badger
S.C. · 2004 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Slater (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
State v. Burkhart, 350 S.C. 252, 261 , 565 S.E.2d 298, 302 (2002); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 261 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Reese (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
"To warrant reversal, a trial judge's refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial." State v. Hughey, 339 S.C. 439, 450 , 529 S.E.2d 721, 727 (2000); see State v. Harrison, 343 S.C. 165, 172 , 539 S.E.2d 71, 74 (Ct.App.2000) ("A trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence."); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) (finding a trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Brewer
S.C. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
However, “a trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence.” State v. Hill , 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor (2×)
S.C. · 2003 · confidence medium
State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Crosby
S.C. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
“The law to be charged to the jury is determined from the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993) (citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cherry (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256 , 513 S.E.2d 104 (1999); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cherry (2×)
S.C. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See State v. Burriss, 334 S.C. 256 , 513 S.E.2d 104 (1999); State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260, 262 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
examined Cited "see" State v. Burriss (4×)
S.C. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260 , 433 S.E.2d 848 (1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Thomas Pearson v. The People of the State of Colorado.
Colo. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g. , State v. Hill , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (S.C. 1993) (holding that there was ample evidence that the defendant fired the gun into the air in self-defense to distract the alleged aggressor).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lucero v. LeMaster (2×)
10th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Hill, 315 S.C. 260 , 433 S.E.2d 848, 849 (1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE, Respondent
v.
Veronica Michelle HILL, Appellant
23889.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 6, 1993.
433 S.E.2d 848
Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, Columbia, for appellant., Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. W. Townes Jones, TV, Greenwood, for respondent.
Toal, Harwell, Finney, Cureton, Chandler.
Cited by 60 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 4 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (4)

Lead Opinion

Toal, Justice:

This is a direct appeal of a jury conviction for voluntary manslaughter. We REVERSE the trial court and REMAND for a new trial.

FACTS

In the early morning hours of May 14, 1990, an altercation occurred in the parking lot adjacent to a nightclub in Laurens, South Carolina. Veronica Hill, the appellant, was standing in the parking lot when one of the participants in the fight handed her a handgun. As the fight escalated, Hill fired a shot into the air. The victim, a spectator to the fight, jumped Hill from behind and began wrestling for the weapon. The scuffle ended when Hill and the victim turned face to face and the gun fired. The victim died almost instantly as a result of the single gunshot wound to her chest.

Hill was indicted by the Laurens County Grand Jury for murder. At a jury trial conducted in November 1991, Hill was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter for which she received a fifteen (15) year sentence. It is from this conviction that Hill appeals.

LAW/ANALYSIS

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on the law of self-defense.[1] If there is evidence of self-defense, the issue should be submitted to the jury upon request. State v. Lee, 293 S.C. 536, 362 S.E. (2d) 24[*262] (1987); State v. Muller, 282 S.C. 10, 316 S.E. (2d) 409 (1984). The law to be charged to the jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial. Frasier v. State, 306 S.C. 158, 410 S.E. (2d) 572 (1991). Conversely, a trial court commits reversible error if it fails to give a requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence. Id.; State v. Lee, 298 S.C. 362, 380 S.E. (2d) 834 (1989).

In South Carolina, to establish self-defense, Hill must show four elements. These elements are: (1) she is without fault in bringing on the difficulty; (2) she believed that she was in imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining serious bodily injury; (3) she had no means of avoiding the danger; and (4) that a reasonably prudent individual of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief about the danger. State v. Davis, 282 S.C. 45, 317 S.E. (2d) 452 (1984); see State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E. (2d) 328 (1989).

The relevant question for the Court to answer is whether there is any evidence in the record which would support a self-defense charge. The record shows that Hill fired the gun into the air when several of her friends began fighting, and that the shot was fired to stop the fighting. It was this gunshot which prompted the victim to attempt taking the gun away from Hill. The victim, a larger person than Hill, came up behind Hill and grabbed her by “the throat.” There was also evidence to support the proposition that after a violent struggle, the victim “lost her grip” on the gun and was shot.

This evidence shows that Hill may not have been responsible for bringing about the difficulty which resulted in the victim’s death. Further, the record supports the conclusion that the struggle alone was some evidence that Hill was in fear or imminent danger of losing her life or sustaining serious bodily injury. The method of victim’s attack from behind is evidence that Hill was attempting to retreat, and that Hill had no means of avoiding the danger. The size differential between Hill and the victim is evidence which would allow a reasonably prudent individual of ordinary firmness and courage to entertain the same belief about the danger.

In reviewing the record, it appears that there was amply evidence to support a self-defense charge to the jury. There[*263] fore, the trial judge erred in not granting Hill’s request to charge self-defense to the jury.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the trial court is REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for a new trial.

Harwell, C.J., Finney, J., and Acting Associate Justice Jasper M. Cureton, concur. Chandler, J., dissenting in separate opinion.
1

There are scores of cases which involve similar struggles over a weapon. In Battle v. State, 305 S.C. 460, 409 S.E. (2d) 400 (1991) (counsel ineffective in not requesting specific self-defense instruction on retreat), the victim, after wielding a gun, was killed in a fight over the weapon. Other cases on similar facts have discussed the lesser-included offenses. See Casey v. State, 305 S.C. 445, 409 S.E. (2d) 391 (1991) (evidence of a struggle is sufficient to warrant a charge of involuntary manslaughter); State v. Penland, 275 S.C. 537,273 S.E. (2d) 765 (1981) (a struggle coupled with other evidence supported a trial judge’s charge of voluntary manslaughter). Still, other cases have addressed issues such as involuntary confessions, State v. Scott, 209 S.C. 61,38 S.E. (2d) 902 (1946) (shooting of a policeman after a struggle over a gun).

Dissent

Chandler, Justice

(dissenting):

The majority asserts the record contains evidence that the defendant was in fear of imminent danger which she had no reasonable means of avoiding. To the contrary, the only details of the crime were presented through the testimony and statements of Rhonda Wideman, a former roommate of Hill. In her first statement Wideman explained why Victim attempted to disarm Hill, to wit: that, after Hill fired a shot in the air, Victim “went over there and said, T don’t want no one to get killed,’ she tried to get the gun, they wrestled for the gun.” It is clear that Victim’s motive in wrestling for the gun was not to injure Hill, but to prevent injuries to third parties.

This being the only evidence regarding Victim’s state of mind, the record is devoid of any inference that Hill reasonably believed she was in imminent danger, or that she had no means of avoiding the danger. Accordingly, I would affirm.