Opinion ID: 1342948
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jury Instructions on Accessory After the Fact and Mere Presence

Text: Appellant contends the trial judge erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on accessory after the fact and, in the alternative, mere presence. We disagree. Since appellant admitted to being present when the murder occurred, he was not entitled to an instruction on accessory after the fact. State v. Plath, 277 S.C. 126, 284 S.E.2d 221 (1981). Further, appellant admitted stealing the truck and being involved in a series of unlawful acts which culminated in the murder. Therefore, appellant was not entitled to an instruction on mere presence. State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (defendant not entitled to charge when evidence does not warrant it).