State v. Washington

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.

Johnny
Washington, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

Thomas W. Cooper Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-139

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed March
10, 2009 

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport; and Solicitor Warren B. Giese,
all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Johnny
Washington appeals from his convictions for armed robbery (two counts) and
assault with the intent to kill.  Washington asserts the circuit court erred by
making an improper "Golden Rule" argument that asked the jurors to view themselves as victims of the crimes for which
Washington was on trial.  Our review of the court's jury instructions indicates
that the examples the court utilized to distinguish the offenses of larceny,
robbery, and armed robbery were general in nature and were factually unrelated
to the facts in this case.  Moreover, these examples were abstract and did not ask
jurors to consider the evidence from the victim's perspective.  In fact, the
circuit court gave the directions in the first person.  While the circuit
court's instructions did not violate the "Golden Rule" argument, in
our view, the better practice would be for the judge to not place himself, or
the jury, in the hypothetical being used to explain the law.

The
circuit court did not indicate its view of the facts in this case or make any
comment that would indicate its opinion regarding Washington's guilt or
innocence.   Rather, the court emphasized that the jury must presume Washington
to be innocent and explained it was the State's burden to prove each element of
the alleged offense, beyond a reasonable doubt, before the jury could find
Washington guilty.  See Daves v. Cleary, 355 S.C. 216, 224, 584
S.E.2d 423, 427 (Ct. App. 2003) (internal citations omitted) ("When
reviewing a jury charge for alleged error, an appellate court must consider the
charge as a whole in light
of the evidence and issues presented at trial.  If the charge is reasonably
free from error, isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute
reversible error.  A jury charge is correct if it contains the correct
definition and adequately charges the law.  The substance of the law is what
must be charged, not any particular verbiage."). 

Therefore,
the circuit court's order is

AFFIRMED.[1]

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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