State v. McGriff

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.

Jerry Louis
McGriff, Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-538

Submitted November 1, 2010 – Filed
December 16, 2010

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh,  Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J.
Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas
A. Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jerry Louis
McGriff was convicted of murder, possession of a firearm during the commission
of a violent crime, and unlawful carrying of a pistol.  The trial court
sentenced McGriff to forty years' imprisonment for murder and concurrent sentences
of one year for unlawful carrying of a pistol and five years for the possession
of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  On appeal, McGriff
argues the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the "hand of one
is the hand of all."  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Ward, 374
S.C. 606, 614, 649 S.E.2d 145, 149 (Ct. App. 2007) (finding the "hand
of one is the hand of all" charge proper when evidence supports the theory
that the defendants joined together to accomplish an illegal purpose); State v. Curry, 370 S.C. 674, 682, 636 S.E.2d 649, 653 (Ct. App. 2006)
("A charge is sufficient if, when considered
as a whole, it covers the law applicable to the case."); State v.
Condrey, 349 S.C. 184, 194, 562
S.E.2d 320, 324 (Ct. App. 2002) ("Under the
'hand of one is the hand of all' 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."); Id. at 194, 562 S.E.2d at 325 (quotation
marks omitted) ("Under an accomplice
liability theory, a person must personally commit the crime or be present at
the scene of the crime and intentionally, or through a common design, aid,
abet, or assist in the commission of that crime through some overt act."); Id.(holding a conspiracy agreement "may
be shown by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the parties."). 

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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