State v. Dudley

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.

Jerry Edward Dudley, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000911

Appeal From Pickens County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-142
Submitted January 1, 2017 – Filed April 5, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, of Columbia;
and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417, 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App.
2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of
the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion
amounting to an error of law."); State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 34, 615 S.E.2d 455,
460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("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." (quoting State v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d
626, 628 (2000))); Bantan, 387 S.C. at 417, 692 S.E.2d at 203 ("The granting of a
motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the
incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.");
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. Unless the misconduct affects the jury's impartiality, it is not
such misconduct as will affect the verdict. The trial court has broad discretion in
assessing allegations of juror misconduct."); State v. Carrigan, 284 S.C. 610, 614,
328 S.E.2d 119, 121 (Ct. App. 1985) ("[T]he mere fact that some conversation
occurs between a juror and a witness for the State does not necessarily prejudice a
defendant."); State v. Grovenstein, 335 S.C. 347, 351, 517 S.E.2d 216, 218 (1999)
(noting the supreme court has "consistently required defendants to demonstrate
prejudice due to improper jury influences").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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