accomplice liability instruction in South Carolina

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2021See State v. Harry, 413 S.C. 534, 540 , 776 S.E.2d 387, 390 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The doctrine of accomplice liability arises from the theory that the hand of one is the hand of all." (quoting State v. Reid, 408 S.C. 461, 472 , 758 S.E.2d 904, 910 (2014))); id. at 540 , 776 S.E.2d at 391 ("Under this theory, one who joins with another to accomplish an illegal purpose is liable criminally for everything done by his confederate incidental to the execution of the common design and purpose." (quoting Reid, 408 S.C. at 472 , 758 S.E.2d at 910 )); see also Reid, 408 S.C. at 472–73, 758 S.E.2d at 910 ("A

2021See State v. Harry, 413 S.C. 534, 540 , 776 S.E.2d 387, 390 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The doctrine of accomplice liability arises from the theory that the hand of one is the hand of all." (quoting State v. Reid, 408 S.C. 461, 472 , 758 S.E.2d 904, 910 (2014))); id. at 540 , 776 S.E.2d at 391 ("Under this theory, one who joins with another to accomplish an illegal purpose is liable criminally for everything done by his confederate incidental to the execution of the common design and purpose." (quoting Reid, 408 S.C. at 472 , 758 S.E.2d at 910 )); see also Reid, 408 S.C. at 472–73, 758 S.E.2d at 910 ("A

2020Wilds v. State, 407 S.C. 432, 440 , 756 S.E.2d 387, 391 (Ct. App. 2014), supports Petitioner's contention that an accomplice liability instruction was not proper.

2020Wilds v. State, 407 S.C. 432, 440 , 756 S.E.2d 387, 391 (Ct. App. 2014), supports Petitioner's contention that an accomplice liability instruction was not proper.

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025See State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479 , 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010) ("An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion."); Cook v. State, 415 S.C. 551, 556 , 784 S.E.2d 665, 667 (2015) ("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. Smith, 391 S.C. 408, 412 , 706 S.E.2d 12, 14 (2011) ("If there is any evidence to warrant a j

2025Because the State presented evidence sufficient to support an accomplice liability instruction, we find the circuit court correctly charged the jury regarding the "hand of one is the hand of all." See Zeigler, 364 S.C. at 106 , 610 S.E.2d at 865 ("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."); id. ("A jury charge that is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal.").

2025Because the State presented evidence sufficient to support an accomplice liability instruction, we find the circuit court correctly charged the jury regarding the "hand of one is the hand of all." See Zeigler, 364 S.C. at 106 , 610 S.E.2d at 865 ("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."); id. ("A jury charge that is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal.").

2022The fact that Johnson mentioned that his due process rights were "Generally, the trial [court] is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina." State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 261 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004).

2022The fact that Johnson mentioned that his due process rights were "Generally, the trial [court] is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina." State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 261 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004).

2021See State v. Harry, 413 S.C. 534, 540 , 776 S.E.2d 387, 390 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The doctrine of accomplice liability arises from the theory that the hand of one is the hand of all." (quoting State v. Reid, 408 S.C. 461, 472 , 758 S.E.2d 904, 910 (2014))); id. at 540 , 776 S.E.2d at 391 ("Under this theory, one who joins with another to accomplish an illegal purpose is liable criminally for everything done by his confederate incidental to the execution of the common design and purpose." (quoting Reid, 408 S.C. at 472 , 758 S.E.2d at 910 )); see also Reid, 408 S.C. at 472–73, 758 S.E.2d at 910 ("A

2021See State v. Harry, 413 S.C. 534, 540 , 776 S.E.2d 387, 390 (Ct. App. 2015) ("The doctrine of accomplice liability arises from the theory that the hand of one is the hand of all." (quoting State v. Reid, 408 S.C. 461, 472 , 758 S.E.2d 904, 910 (2014))); id. at 540 , 776 S.E.2d at 391 ("Under this theory, one who joins with another to accomplish an illegal purpose is liable criminally for everything done by his confederate incidental to the execution of the common design and purpose." (quoting Reid, 408 S.C. at 472 , 758 S.E.2d at 910 )); see also Reid, 408 S.C. at 472–73, 758 S.E.2d at 910 ("A

2020Since we remand this case for a new trial, we are compelled to note the court of appeals' well-reasoned holding in State v. Sierra, 337 S.C. 368, 379 , 523 S.E.2d 187, 192 (Ct. App. 1999), that it is generally improper for the prosecutor to impeach a witness by referring to out-of- court statements allegedly made by that witness to the prosecutor.

2020Since we remand this case for a new trial, we are compelled to note the court of appeals' well-reasoned holding in State v. Sierra, 337 S.C. 368, 379 , 523 S.E.2d 187, 192 (Ct. App. 1999), that it is generally improper for the prosecutor to impeach a witness by referring to out-of- court statements allegedly made by that witness to the prosecutor.

2020Ironically, if extrinsic evidence of Kinloch's alleged statement is introduced, it could render moot the dispute over the accomplice liability instruction. 5 See Washington, 424 S.C. at 399-401 , 818 S.E.2d at 472-73 . reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121 , 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001).

2020Ironically, if extrinsic evidence of Kinloch's alleged statement is introduced, it could render moot the dispute over the accomplice liability instruction. 5 See Washington, 424 S.C. at 399-401 , 818 S.E.2d at 472-73 . reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121 , 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001).

2020"An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law[.]" State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325 , 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000)).

2020"An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law[.]" State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325 , 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389 , 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000)).

2014See State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 412 , 605 S.E.2d 540, 542 (2004) (noting the law to be charged is determined by the evidence presented at trial); State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 214 , 349 S.E.2d 339, 341 (1986) (holding no prejudicial error in the trial court's charge to the jury on the law of voluntary intoxication, even though intoxication was not a defense, as there was some evidence showing the appellant had been drinking prior to the shooting).

2014See State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 412 , 605 S.E.2d 540, 542 (2004) (noting the law to be charged is determined by the evidence presented at trial); State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 214 , 349 S.E.2d 339, 341 (1986) (holding no prejudicial error in the trial court's charge to the jury on the law of voluntary intoxication, even though intoxication was not a defense, as there was some evidence showing the appellant had been drinking prior to the shooting).

2014See State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 412 , 605 S.E.2d 540, 542 (2004) (noting the law to be charged is determined by the evidence presented at trial); State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 214 , 349 S.E.2d 339, 341 (1986) (holding no prejudicial error in the trial court's charge to the jury on the law of voluntary intoxication, even though intoxication was not a defense, as there was some evidence showing the appellant had been drinking prior to the shooting).

2014See State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 412 , 605 S.E.2d 540, 542 (2004) (noting the law to be charged is determined by the evidence presented at trial); State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 214 , 349 S.E.2d 339, 341 (1986) (holding no prejudicial error in the trial court's charge to the jury on the law of voluntary intoxication, even though intoxication was not a defense, as there was some evidence showing the appellant had been drinking prior to the shooting).