The South Carolina Court of Appeals has upheld the conviction of Jesse Sebastian Broughton for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. This ruling, issued on November 4, 2026, confirms Broughton's five-year prison sentence, which is suspended after serving two years and followed by three years of probation. The decision impacts Broughton and sets a precedent on how jury instructions are handled in similar cases.

Broughton was convicted in Colleton County for possessing more than one ounce of marijuana with the intent to distribute. His appeal raised questions about the jury instructions provided during his trial, particularly regarding the inference of intent to distribute based on the amount of marijuana found. The court's ruling is significant for those involved in drug-related cases and clarifies the legal standards for jury instructions.

Background

The case began when Jesse Broughton was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, a serious offense in South Carolina. The state argued that the amount of marijuana Broughton possessed indicated he intended to sell it, rather than simply use it personally. During the trial, the jury was instructed that possessing more than one ounce of marijuana could lead to a permissive inference of intent to distribute.

After being convicted, Broughton appealed his case, arguing that the jury instruction was unconstitutional. He contended that the instruction improperly commented on the facts of the case and that he should be allowed to challenge it even though he did not object during the trial. This appeal brought the case to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, where the judges reviewed the trial court's decisions.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeals ruled to affirm Broughton's conviction, stating that his issues regarding the jury instruction were not preserved for appellate review. The court noted that Broughton failed to raise an objection to the jury instruction during the trial, which is a necessary step to preserve such issues for appeal. The court cited previous cases, including State v. Dunbar and State v. Daniels, to support its decision.

The court ruled, "In order for an issue to be preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court."

Furthermore, the court addressed Broughton's reliance on the case State v. Orr, which he argued should allow him to challenge the instruction without a contemporaneous objection. However, the court clarified that the instruction in Broughton's case did not remove a disputed factual issue from the jury's consideration. The judges emphasized that the jury was still tasked with determining the intent based on the evidence presented.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future cases involving jury instructions and drug-related offenses. By affirming the conviction without addressing the merits of Broughton's claims about the jury instruction, the court reinforced the requirement that defendants must object to jury instructions at trial if they wish to challenge them on appeal.

The decision also clarifies the legal standard regarding permissive inferences of intent to distribute based on the quantity of drugs involved. This could affect how similar cases are prosecuted in South Carolina, as defendants may need to be more vigilant in raising objections during their trials to preserve their rights for appeal.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Broughton plans to appeal this decision further. However, as the ruling is not precedential, it does not set a binding legal standard for future cases, although it may influence similar appeals in the state.