State v. Dickerson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Joseph Dickerson       
Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-002

Submitted December 15, 2003 – Filed
January 6, 2004

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office
of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles
H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Meyers, Eleventh Circuit Solicitor's Office,
of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joseph Dickerson was convicted
of criminal conspiracy and four counts of armed robbery.  Dickerson appeals
his conviction, arguing the trial court erred by denying Dickerson’s motion
for mistrial, or alternatively, refusing to grant a new trial after a witness
offered testimony which improperly placed Dickerson’s character in issue.  We
affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2),
SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Howard, 296 S.C. 481,
483, 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) (the decision to grant or deny a motion for
a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be
overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of
law); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 227, 522 S.E.2d 845, 851(Ct.App.
1999) (“[a] mistrial should only be granted in cases of manifest necessity and
with the greatest caution for very plain and obvious reasons.”); State v.
Council, 335 S.C. 1, 13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) (the moving party has
the burden to show not only error, but resulting prejudice);  State v. Kelsey,
331 S.C. 50, 70, 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998) (“[t]he granting of the motion for
a mistrial is an extreme measure which should be taken only where an incident
is so grievous that prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.”). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCAR.