Criminal Practice – Accomplice Liability – Jury Instruction

The State presented evidence sufficient to support an accomplice liability instruction.

We affirmed.

Defendant appealed his convictions for murder and attempted murder, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and instructing the jury on accomplice liability. Defendant contended that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to establish his involvement in the crimes charged. We disagreed. Among other things, the State presented phone records demonstrating that Defendant was untruthful regarding his whereabouts at the time of the shootings. Further, the State presented evidence that 15 of the 41 cartridges recovered at the crime scene came from the same gun, which Agent Eichenmiller testified could have been a nine-millimeter Smith and Wesson. Defendant’s own text messages establish that he was trying to sell “a Smith and Wesson nine-millimeter brand new 17 shots” just two days before the shootings. Agent Eichenmiller further opined that a bullet recovered during William Tyrone “Shine” Gantt’s autopsy was likely fired from a Smith and Wesson nine-millimeter. Finally, Defendant texted his former girlfriend that he needed “a place to lay low for a while” approximately 12 hours after the shootings. Even when we view all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to Defendant, the evidence in the record reasonably tends to prove his guilt.

Defendant next argued that the circuit court erred in instructing the jury on the doctrine of accomplice liability because there was insufficient evidence to support this jury charge. We disagreed. The evidence presented by the State demonstrates that Defendant, along with Donovan Tirrell “Fresh” Brannon, was not only present during the shootings in this case, but he was an active participant, and he quite possibly fired the shots that killed Gantt and wounded Brandon “Pedro” Jeffery. Because the State presented evidence sufficient to support an accomplice liability instruction, we found the circuit court correctly charged the jury regarding the “hand of one is the hand of all.”

Affirmed.

The State v. Shantrez Alejandro Robertson (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-051-25, 8 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Lexington County Circuit Court (Walton J. McLeod, IV, J.) Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best and Jillian Marie Lesley, of Elizabeth Franklin-Best, P.C., of Columbia, for Appellant; Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General Tommy Evans, Jr., of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, all for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished