Opinion ID: 2507697
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Act on Appearances

Text: In challenging the judge's instructions, Dickey argues the Court of Appeals erred in finding the instruction on the right to act on appearances was adequate where the instruction did not explain the proper test, which is especially critical where Dickey could see Boot reaching under his shirt. Additionally, Dickey asserts the Court of Appeals failed to recognize that the right to act on appearances is a separate issue from the second and third elements of self-defense regarding actual danger and reasonable belief of danger. As an initial matter, I believe Dickey is barred from raising certain arguments to this Court as they were not presented to the trial judge or the Court of Appeals. See State v. Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 196, 577 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2003) (holding a defendant may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal). At trial, Dickey's counsel submitted two requests to charge on the right to act on appearances. Although the trial judge instructed the jury on the right to act on appearances, he did not use the specific language requested by Dickey. [8] On appeal, Dickey generally argued that the trial judge erred by refusing to adequately charge on appearances. Accordingly, I confine my review of this issue solely to a determination of whether the trial judge's instruction on the right to act on appearances adequately covered Dickey's requests to charge. To warrant reversal, a trial judge's refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant. Burkhart, 350 S.C. at 263, 565 S.E.2d at 304. Failure to give requested jury instructions is not prejudicial error where the instructions given afford the proper test for determining the issues. Id. An appellate court will not reverse the trial judge's decision regarding a jury charge absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 570, 647 S.E.2d 144, 166 (2007). Turning to the facts of the instant case, I agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial judge sufficiently instructed the jury on the right to act on appearances as the instruction essentially tracked the language of this Court's opinion in State v. Jackson, 227 S.C. 271, 278, 87 S.E.2d 681, 684 (1955). [9] Notably, Dickey cited Jackson in support of his two requests. Given the judge's instruction covered the substance of Dickey's requests, the judge's failure to charge the requests did not constitute reversible error.