State v. Partain

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.

Alexander
Partain, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-311

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed May 16.
2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Christina T. Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Alexander Partain appeals his conviction for discharging a firearm
into a vehicle, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) instructing the jury
that its job was "to search for the truth" and (2) not allowing
Partain to reply to the State's closing argument on the facts.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the
circuit court erred in instructing the jury that its job was "to search
for the truth": State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 27, 538 S.E.2d 248, 251 (2000) ("[J]ury
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.  The standard for review of an ambiguous jury instruction is
whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged
instruction in a way that violates the Constitution.").

2. As to
whether the circuit court erred in not allowing Partain to reply to the State's
closing argument on the facts: State v. Pinkard, 365 S.C. 541, 543-44,
617 S.E.2d 397, 398 (Ct. App. 2005) (holding the State has the right to make
the final closing argument in a criminal case if the defendant presents
evidence).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.

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