 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kelsey6/8/1998
within the sound discretion of the trial court. If the photographs serve to corroborate testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit them. State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 478 S.E.2d 260 (1996). A photograph should be excluded only if it is calculated to arouse the jury's sympathy or prejudice or is irrelevant or unnecessary to substantiate facts. Id. In this case, the photographs corroborated other testimony concerning the condition of Richey's body as first discovered by police at the crime scene. Additionally, the location of bone and bomb fragments clearly supported testimony that a bomb detonated in Richey's mouth. Kelsey merely hypothesizes that the crime scene could have been disturbed by natural forces. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the exhibits into evidence.
XI. CONSPIRACY AND MERE PRESENCE
Kelsey argues that the trial court erred in failing to give proper conspiracy and mere presence instructions. We disagree.
Kelsey contends that the trial court's mere presence charge was blended in so closely with the accomplice liability charge that it was misleading. Kelsey further argues that the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury that one's mere association with a person who conu-nits a crime does not make a defendant an accomplice or a co-conspirator to the guilty perpetrator. The trial court's instruction provided, in part:
Now of course, mere presence at the scene is insufficient to prove someone guilty of a crime. The burden is upon the state to prove every element of the crime charged. If you find after reviewing all of the evidence that the state has proven that the defendant was only present at the scene of the crime and they have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt any other participation in the crime, then you must find a defendant not guilty.
The law says that proof of mere presence at the scene of the crime is not sufficient to find someone guilty. But, of course the law also says that the hand of one is the hand of all.
The law says -- that if a person -- if a crime is committed by two or more persons who are acting together in the commission of a crime, then the act of one is the act of both.
We find the trial court's charge was not misleading. It clearly explained that the prosecution had to prove every element of the crime and that mere presence was not enough to sustain a conviction. Moreover, the trial Judge extensively instructed the jury on the requisite criminal intent for each of the charged crimes. In charging the jury on conspiracy, the trial judge explained, "Before a defendant may be convicted ... it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant was a knowing party to the conspiracy . . . ." (emphasis added). We hold that the trial court's instructions, taken as a whole, were adequate. See State v. Sims, 304 S.C. 409, 405 S.E.2d 377 (1991)(jury instructions must be considered as a whole and if as a whole, they are free from error, any isolated portions which might be misleading do not constitute reversible error).
XII. MISTAKE OF FACT
Kelsey argues that the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the law of mistake of fact. Kelsey contends that he believed Richey was dead when he placed the pipe bomb into her mouth. He asserts that even if Richey were alive when he did this, his mistaken belief that she was dead negates the criminal intent required to be convicted of murder. Thus, he was entitled to a jury charge. We disagree.
At trial, Kelsey requested the following jury instruction:
In this case the state is required to pro
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|