With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". three counts of first-degree CSC with a minor, in violation of South Carolina Code section 16-3-655. Another statute, section 16-3-657, provides that “[t]he testimony of the victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under §§ 16-3-652 through 16-3-658.” The circuit court charged the jury the above quoted language of section 16-3-657. This was reversible error. “In general, the trial court is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina. ... A jury charge is correct if it contains the correct definition of the law when read as a whole.” Sheppard v. State, 357 S.C. 646, 665, 594 S.E.2d 462, 472 (2004) (citations omitted). Some principles of law, however, are not to be charged to a jury. See, e.g., State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 408, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to the majority opinion, we did not

A: holding that although evidence of a defendants flight is admissible as circumstantial evidence of guilt it is improper for the trial judge to instruct the jury on the law of flight because such an instruction oftentimes has the potential for creating more problems than solutions as it places undue emphasis upon that part of circumstantial evidence
B: holding that erroneous instruction that flight from the scene of the crime implied guilt was harmless because there was other evidence to sustain a conviction
C: holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination
D: holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
A.