Court Opinion

ID: 9572712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:44:02.004589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:52.702157
License: Public Domain

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.
*222Appellant’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.