stated, “The Defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof remains on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Additionally, the circuit court instructed, “The presumption of innocence is like a robe of righteousness placed about the shoulders of the Defendant[,] which remains with the Defendant until it has been stripped from the Defendant by evidence satisfying you of the Defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Thus, our review of the record and the entire charge reveals no prejudice sufficient to warrant reversal. See Beaty, No. 1 at 16 (reviewing the trial court’s comments and the entire trial record and concluding there was no prejudice from the trial court’s error sufficient to warrant reversal); Simmons, 384 S.C. at 178, 682 S.E.2d at 36 (<HOLDING>); id. (“If, as a whole, the charges are
holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge holding that although portion of trial courts jury charge was inapplicable any error in providing it was harmless in light of the fact that charge considered as a whole was not likely to confuse or mislead the jury holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding