Case Name: The STATE Respondent, v. Ronald John SOMERSET, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1981-04-21
Citations: 276 S.C. 220
Docket Number: 21433
Parties: The STATE Respondent, v. Ronald John SOMERSET, Appellant.
Judges: Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, J., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 276
Pages: 220–222

Head Matter:
21433
The STATE Respondent, v. Ronald John SOMERSET, Appellant.
(277 S. E. (2d) 593)
Deputy App. Defender Vance J. Bettis, of S. C. Commission of App. Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Darnel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Lindy Pike Funkhouser, Columbia, and Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.
April 21, 1981.

Opinion:
Ness, Justice.
Appellant Ronald John Somerset was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to include a verdict of not guilty in its forms of verdict. We disagree.
Although the better practice is to submit a verdict of not guilty, the law to be charged must be determined from the evidence presented. State v. Rogers, S. C., 272 S. E. (2d) 792 (1980).
Here, appellant relied on an insanity defense throughout his trial, he conceded he shot the deceased in the back, therefore, there was no real issue as to what occurred. The only possible verdicts the jury could return based on the evidence were "Guilty of Murder" or "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity." Under the facts of this case the trial judge's failure to submit a general verdict of not guilty was not reversible error.
Appellant next asserts that during cross-examination the solicitor impermissibly addressed the commitment and release procedure used when someone has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant failed to make a timely objection to the solicitor's first question concerning release and he has waived his right to raise this error on appeal. State v. Goolsby, S. C., 268 S. E. (2d) 31 (1980). The solicitor withdrew his second question, the appellant's objection and motion to strike is therefore moot.
Appellant's remaining exceptions are without merit and are dismissed pursuant to Rule 23.
Affirmed.
Lewis, C. J., and Littlejohn, J., concur.
Gregory and Harwell, JJ., dissent.