State v. Michael T. Rencher

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Michael Taquarius Rencher, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000869

Appeal From Pickens County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-078
Submitted January 1, 2019 – Filed February 13, 2019

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins,
III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Cottrell, 421 S.C. 622, 643, 809 S.E.2d 423, 435 (2017) ("An
appellate court will only reverse a trial court's decision regarding a jury charge if
there is an abuse of discretion." (citing State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 570, 647
S.E.2d 144, 166 (2007))); State v. Marin, 415 S.C. 475, 482, 783 S.E.2d 808, 812
(2016) ("[T]o warrant reversal, a trial [court's] refusal to give a requested jury
charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant." (quoting State v.
Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, 550, 713 S.E.2d 591, 603 (2011))); State v. Cheeseboro, 346
S.C. 526, 538-39, 552 S.E.2d 300, 307 (2001) ("To establish a due process
violation, a defendant must demonstrate (1) that the State destroyed the evidence in
bad faith, or (2) that the evidence possessed an exculpatory value apparent before
the evidence was destroyed and the defendant cannot obtain other evidence of
comparable value by other means." (emphasis added)); State v. Batson, 261 S.C.
128, 138, 198 S.E.2d 517, 522 (1973) ("[A spoliation] charge . . . to a jury on a
behalf of either the State or the defense is not warranted except under most unusual
circumstances."); State v. McBride, 416 S.C. 379, 389, 786 S.E.2d 435, 440 (Ct.
App. 2016) ("Adverse inference charges are rarely permitted in criminal cases.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and THOMAS and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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