State v. Mercer

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.

Kevin J.
Mercer, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

 Larry R. Patterson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-093

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 23, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,

Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; Solicitor
Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kevin Mercer appeals his convictions and sentences for
assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWIK) and carrying a weapon by an
inmate, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the
defense of others.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Sheppard v.
State, 357 S.C. 646, 665, 594 S.E.2d 462, 473 (2004) (holding a trial court
is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina); State
v. Starnes, 340 S.C. 312, 323, 531 S.E.2d 907, 913 (2000) ("[I]n
order for the trial court to give a defense of others charge, there must be
some evidence adduced at trial that the defendant was indeed lawfully defending
others."); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27, 538 S.E.2d 248,
251 (2000) (explaining jury instructions should be considered as a whole,
and if as a whole they are free from error, any isolated portions which may be
misleading do not constitute reversible error); State v. Long, 325 S.C.
59, 64, 480 S.E.2d 62, 64 (1997) (explaining under the theory of defense of
others, "one is not guilty of taking the life of an assailant who assaults
a friend, relative, or bystander if that friend, relative, or bystander would
likewise have the right to take the life of the assailant in self-defense."); State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 262, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct. App.
2004) (stating the law to be charged to the
jury is determined by the evidence presented at trial, and if any evidence
supports a jury charge, the trial court should grant the request). 

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.