State v. Robinson

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.

Christopher Antangelo
Robinson, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-324

Submitted June 1, 2010 – June 23, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Christopher Antangelo Robinson was convicted of possession of crack cocaine
with intent to distribute and
possession of marijuana.  He appeals,
arguing the circuit court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the law of
inconsistent prior statements.  Due to the State's violation of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Rule 5(a)(1)(C), SCRCrimP, Robinson
contends the circuit court erred in denying his motions (1) to exclude testimony
concerning money found on Robinson at the time of his arrest; (2) to instruct
the jury to disregard the testimony concerning the money in deliberations; and
(3) for mistrial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: 

1.  As to whether
the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the law of prior
inconsistent statements: State
v. Gaines, 380 S.C. 23,
31, 667 S.E.2d 728, 732 (2008) ("To warrant reversal, a trial court's
refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial
to the defendant."); State v.
Cole, 338 S.C. 97, 101, 525 S.E.2d
511, 512 (2000) ("The law to be charged must be determined from the
evidence presented at trial."); State v. Commander, 384 S.C. 66,
75, 681 S.E.2d 31, 36 (Ct. App. 2009) (stating "an instruction should not
be given unless justified by the evidence").

2.  As to whether the State
violated Brady such that the circuit court erred in denying Robinson's
motions (1) to exclude testimony concerning money found on Robinson at the time
of his arrest; (2) to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony in
deliberations; and (3) for mistrial: S.C. Farm
Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. S.E.C.U.R.E. Underwriters Risk Retention Group, 347 S.C. 333, 343, 554 S.E.2d 870, 875 (Ct. App. 2001)
("An issue must be raised and ruled upon by the trial court for an
appellate court to review the issue.").

3.  As to whether the State
violated Rule 5(a)(1)(C), SCRCrimP, such that the circuit court erred in
denying Robinson's motions (1) to exclude testimony concerning money found on
Robinson at the time of his arrest; (2) to instruct the jury to disregard the
testimony in deliberations; and (3) for mistrial: Rule 5(a)(1)(A), (B), (C), SCRCrimP
(providing criminal defendants are entitled to their statements, criminal
records, and any documents or tangible objects material to the preparation of
their defense or intended for use by the prosecution); State v. Kennerly,
331 S.C. 442, 453, 503 S.E.2d 214, 220 (Ct. App. 1998) ("The definition of
'material' for purposes of Rule 5 is the same as the definition used in the Brady context."); id. (stating that under Brady "evidence is
material only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been
disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been
different").

AFFIRMED.

KONDUROS,
GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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