insanity defense in South Carolina

2017As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the insanity defense: State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 278 , 494 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1997) ("The law to be charged is determined from the facts presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 410 S.C. 46 , 52, 762 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2014) ("This court will not reverse a circuit court's decision to deny a specific request to charge unless the circuit court committed an error of law."); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If there is any evidence to support a jury charge, the trial [court] should grant the requ

2017As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the insanity defense: State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 278 , 494 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1997) ("The law to be charged is determined from the facts presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 410 S.C. 46 , 52, 762 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2014) ("This court will not reverse a circuit court's decision to deny a specific request to charge unless the circuit court committed an error of law."); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If there is any evidence to support a jury charge, the trial [court] should grant the requ

2017As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the insanity defense: State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 278 , 494 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1997) ("The law to be charged is determined from the facts presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 410 S.C. 46 , 52, 762 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2014) ("This court will not reverse a circuit court's decision to deny a specific request to charge unless the circuit court committed an error of law."); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If there is any evidence to support a jury charge, the trial [court] should grant the requ

2017As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the insanity defense: State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 278 , 494 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1997) ("The law to be charged is determined from the facts presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 410 S.C. 46 , 52, 762 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2014) ("This court will not reverse a circuit court's decision to deny a specific request to charge unless the circuit court committed an error of law."); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If there is any evidence to support a jury charge, the trial [court] should grant the requ

2017As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the insanity defense: State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 278 , 494 S.E.2d 115, 117 (1997) ("The law to be charged is determined from the facts presented at trial."); State v. Curry, 410 S.C. 46 , 52, 762 S.E.2d 721, 724 (Ct. App. 2014) ("This court will not reverse a circuit court's decision to deny a specific request to charge unless the circuit court committed an error of law."); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262 , 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App. 2004) ("If there is any evidence to support a jury charge, the trial [court] should grant the requ

2008See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1996) (no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the trial courts ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection).

2008See State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510 , 476 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1996) (no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the trial courts ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection).

2008Nonetheless, the issue in this case is not whether it is appropriate, but rather, the issue is whether the trial court's ruling precluding such questioning rendered Appellant's trial "fundamentally unfair." "See Hill, 361 S.C. at 310 , 604 S.E.2d at 703 (affirming trial court's ruling that limited voir dire questioning where such limitation did not render the delendant's trial fundamentally unfair). [3] We do not base our finding of no prejudice on the fact that the jury found the existence of five aggravating factors.

2008Nonetheless, the issue in this case is not whether it is appropriate, but rather, the issue is whether the trial court's ruling precluding such questioning rendered Appellant's trial "fundamentally unfair." "See Hill, 361 S.C. at 310 , 604 S.E.2d at 703 (affirming trial court's ruling that limited voir dire questioning where such limitation did not render the delendant's trial fundamentally unfair). [3] We do not base our finding of no prejudice on the fact that the jury found the existence of five aggravating factors.

2007Additionally in State v. Poindexter, we found that the "jury was free to rely on circumstantial evidence to find [the defendant] sane even though expert testimony favored a finding that he was insane." 314 S.C. 490, 494 , 431 S.E.2d 254, 256 (1993). *547 During its case in chief, the State presented several witnesses who testified about Appellant's behavior and demeanor the day after the murders.

2007Additionally in State v. Poindexter, we found that the "jury was free to rely on circumstantial evidence to find [the defendant] sane even though expert testimony favored a finding that he was insane." 314 S.C. 490, 494 , 431 S.E.2d 254, 256 (1993). *547 During its case in chief, the State presented several witnesses who testified about Appellant's behavior and demeanor the day after the murders.

2007In State v. Smith , this Court held that the State could use lay testimony to rebut a criminal defendant's insanity defense. 298 S.C. at 208 , 379 S.E.2d at 288 (finding expert testimony unnecessary to show sanity where the State presents sufficient lay testimony from which the jury may infer sanity).

2007In State v. Smith , this Court held that the State could use lay testimony to rebut a criminal defendant's insanity defense. 298 S.C. at 208 , 379 S.E.2d at 288 (finding expert testimony unnecessary to show sanity where the State presents sufficient lay testimony from which the jury may infer sanity).

2004Wainwright v. Greenfield, supra; see also State v. Smith, 290 S.C. 393 , 350 S.E.2d 923 (1986).

2004Wainwright v. Greenfield, supra; see also State v. Smith, 290 S.C. 393 , 350 S.E.2d 923 (1986).

1992See State v. Korell , 213 Mont. 316 , 690 P. (2d) 992 (1984); State v. Searcy , 118 Idaho 632 , 798 P. (2d) 914 (1990). [6] We do recognize the potential diminishment in culpability resulting from the existence of the mitigating factors in this case.

1992See State v. Korell , 213 Mont. 316 , 690 P. (2d) 992 (1984); State v. Searcy , 118 Idaho 632 , 798 P. (2d) 914 (1990). [6] We do recognize the potential diminishment in culpability resulting from the existence of the mitigating factors in this case.

1992See Rivera v. Delaware , 429 U.S. 877 , 97 S.Ct. 226 , 50 L.Ed. (2d) 160 (1976) (defendant's request to overrule Leland dismissed for want of substantial federal question). [5] Some jurisdictions have completely abolished the insanity defense, and take the position that such action is constitutionally permitted.

1992See Rivera v. Delaware , 429 U.S. 877 , 97 S.Ct. 226 , 50 L.Ed. (2d) 160 (1976) (defendant's request to overrule Leland dismissed for want of substantial federal question). [5] Some jurisdictions have completely abolished the insanity defense, and take the position that such action is constitutionally permitted.

1987When this power exists in a defendant... he must answer for his acts.” State v. McIntosh, 39 S. C. 97, 17 S. E. 446 (1893); see also State v. Bramlett, 114 S. C. 389, 103 S. E. 755 (1920).