State v. Rampey

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals The State, Respondent, v. Charles Brandon Rampey, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-001905 Appeal From Pickens County Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-245 Submitted November 1, 2019 – Filed August 19, 2020 REVERSED William G. Yarborough, III, of William G. Yarborough III, Attorney at Law, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Assistant Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, both of Columbia, and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Reversed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Taylor, 427 S.C. 208, 215, 829 S.E.2d 723, 727 (Ct. App. 2019) ("South Carolina approves the use of a modified Allen[1] charge, which must be neutral and even-handed, instruct both the majority and minority to reconsider their views, and cannot be directed at the jurors in the minority."); Tucker v. Catoe, 346 S.C. 483, 492-94, 552 S.E.2d 712, 717-18 (2001) (per curiam) (providing the following factors to consider in determining whether an Allen charge is unconstitutionally coercive: (1) whether the charge spoke specifically to the minority juror(s); (2) whether the trial court included in its charge any language such as "You have got to reach a decision in this case"; (3) whether there was an inquiry into the jury's numerical division; and (4) the timing of the returned verdict after the charge); Taylor, 427 S.C. at 218, 829 S.E.2d at 729 ("The Tucker criteria have never been deemed comprehensive."); id. ("The most troubling thing about the charge . . . is what it did not say: it did not tell the jurors they should not surrender their conscientiously held beliefs simply for the sake of reaching a verdict, an essential message that sometimes saves borderline charges from crossing the line into coercion."); id. at 219, 829 S.E.2d at 729 ("The charge . . . also overemphasized the cost and expense of a retrial."); Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting the court need not address remaining issues when the prior issue is dispositive). REVERSED.2 HUFF, WILLIAMS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur. 1 2 Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.