Court Opinion

ID: 9582272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:24:31.799604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:36.482359
License: Public Domain

Gregory, Chief Justice,
dissenting:
I disagree with the analysis of the majority and respectfully dissent.
Contrary to the majority’s analysis, the record indicates appellant objected only to the trial judge’s refusal to give a charge of accessory after the fact to murder on his behalf. Appellant did not request withdrawal of this charge as to his codefendant.
Appellant concedes that accessory after the fact is not a lesser included offense of murder. A defendant cannot be convicted of a crime for which he is not indicted if it is not a lesser included offense to that charged in the indictment. State v. Munn, 292 S. C. 497, 357 S. E. (2d) 461 (1987). Clearly, it would have been error for the trial judge to submit a charge of accessory after the fact on appellant’s behalf for the jury’s consideration. The trial judge properly denied the only relief appellant requested.
I would dispose of appellant’s remaining exceptions under Supreme Court Rule 23 and affirm his convictions.
Littlejohn, Acting Associate J., concurs.