State v. Hartzell

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL
VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED
BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Donald L. Hartzell, Jr.,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Colleton County

Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-136

Submitted December 23, 2003 – Filed
February 27, 2004

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office of Appellate
Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles
H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Rapoport, of Columbia;
and Solicitor Randolph Murdaugh, III, of Hampton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Affirmed
pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State
v. Avery, 333 S.C. 284, 296, 509 S.E.2d 476, 483 (1998) (holding when a
defendant fails to request a jury charge at trial, the defendant cannot argue
on appeal that the circuit court erred by failing to charge the jury); State
v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 411, 523 S.E.2d 466, 467 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding
where the circuit court gives the jury a curative or supplemental instruction,
“[n]o issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts
the judge’s ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection
to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial”); State
v. Chapman, 336 S.C. 149, 153, 519 S.E.2d 100, 102 (1999) (“A homicide will
be excusable on the ground of accident when (1) the killing was unintentional,
(2) the defendant was acting lawfully, and (3) due care was exercised in the
handling of the weapon.”). 

AFFIRMED. [1]

GOOLSBY, HOWARD, and KITTREDGE, JJ., concurring.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in resolving
any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.