State v. Wallace

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.

Elbert Wallace, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-196746

Appeal From Richland County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-165
Submitted March 1, 2013 – Filed April 24, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant
Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry and Solicitor Daniel
Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117, 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App.
2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of
the trial court."); id. ("The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial
should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show
both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v.
Kelly, 331 S.C. 132, 141, 502 S.E.2d 99, 104 (1998) ("In a criminal prosecution,
the conduct of the jurors should be free from all extraneous or improper
influences."); id. ("Unless the misconduct affects the jury's impartiality, it is not
such misconduct as will affect the verdict."); id. ("The trial court has broad
discretion in assessing allegations of juror misconduct."); id. at 141-42, 502 S.E.2d
at 104 ("Relevant factors to be considered in determining whether outside
influences have affected the jury are the number of jurors exposed, the weight of
the evidence properly before the jury, and the likelihood that curative measures
were effective in reducing the prejudice."); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658, 623
S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to
have cured any alleged error."); State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 421-23, 692 S.E.2d
201, 205-07 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding no abuse of discretion when a trial court
asked each juror if they could disavow an improper remark "then reminded the jury
of its obligation to deliberate based solely on the evidence presented . . .").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.