defendant is reversible error in South Carolina

2022See State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v. Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412 , 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State had a "demonstrable need" to introduce the photographs because "[i]n the absence of an in-court identif

2022See State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v. Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412 , 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State had a "demonstrable need" to introduce the photographs because "[i]n the absence of an in-court identif

2022See State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v. Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412 , 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State had a "demonstrable need" to introduce the photographs because "[i]n the absence of an in-court identif

2022See State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v. Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412 , 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State had a "demonstrable need" to introduce the photographs because "[i]n the absence of an in-court identif

2013As to the admittance of the mug shots: State v. Garner, 389 S.C. 61, 65 , 697 S.E.2d 615, 617 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that prejudices the defendant."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a

2013As to the admittance of the mug shots: State v. Garner, 389 S.C. 61, 65 , 697 S.E.2d 615, 617 (Ct. App. 2010) ("Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that prejudices the defendant."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a

2012As to the admissibility of the mug shot: Id. at 65 , 697 S.E.2d at 617 ("Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that prejudices the defendant."); id. ("The trial court abuses its discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law or factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstra

2012As to the admissibility of the mug shot: Id. at 65 , 697 S.E.2d at 617 ("Evidentiary rulings are within the sound discretion of the trial court, and such rulings will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error that prejudices the defendant."); id. ("The trial court abuses its discretion when the ruling is based on an error of law or factual conclusion that is without evidentiary support."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstra

2022See State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v. Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412 , 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State had a "demonstrable need" to introduce the photographs because "[i]n the absence of an in-court identif

2022See State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication."); State v. Denson, 269 S.C. 407, 412 , 237 S.E.2d 761, 764 (1977) (finding the State had a "demonstrable need" to introduce the photographs because "[i]n the absence of an in-court identif

2026"The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication." State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 444, 450 , 513 S.E.2d 385, 388 (Ct. App. 1999).

2026"The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the state has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to draw attention to its origin or implication." State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 444, 450 , 513 S.E.2d 385, 388 (Ct. App. 1999).

2021See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); id. ("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. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction

2021See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); id. ("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. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction

2021See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); id. ("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. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction

2021See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); id. ("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. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction

2021See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); id. ("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. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction

2021See State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442 , 706 S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557 , 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002))); id. ("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. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016See State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 549 , 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011) (“In reviewing jury charges for error, we must consider the court’s jury charge as a whole in light of the evidence and issues presented at trial” (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 318 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 463 (Ct.App.2003))); State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 418 , 535 S.E.2d 431, 435 (2000) (finding a trial judge’s refusal to specifically tailor the self-defense charge to adequately reflect the facts and theories presented by the defendant is reversible error (citation omitted)); State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 443 , 377 S.E.2d

2016First, it is my opinion that Marin was entitled to a charge explaining that where a defendant is justified in using deadly force, the defendant may continue to use such force until the danger dissipates. 7 See State v. Hendrix, 270 S.C. 653, 661 , 244 S.E.2d 503, 507 (1978) (holding a person justified in firing the first shot in self-defense may continue to shoot until the apparent danger to his life or body has ceased).

2016First, it is my opinion that Marin was entitled to a charge explaining that where a defendant is justified in using deadly force, the defendant may continue to use such force until the danger dissipates. 7 See State v. Hendrix, 270 S.C. 653, 661 , 244 S.E.2d 503, 507 (1978) (holding a person justified in firing the first shot in self-defense may continue to shoot until the apparent danger to his life or body has ceased).

2015PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 135 , 731 S.E.2d 604, 609 (Ct. App. 2012) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to

2015PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 135 , 731 S.E.2d 604, 609 (Ct. App. 2012) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 84 , 600 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2004) ("The introduction of a 'mug-shot' of a defendant is reversible error unless: (1) the [S]tate has a demonstrable need to introduce the photograph, (2) the photograph shown to the jury does not suggest the defendant has a criminal record, and (3) the photograph is not introduced in such a way as to