Full Steam Ahead v. Graham

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

Full Steam
Ahead, Inc., Respondent,

v.

Mary Graham, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

 Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-380

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed August 3,
2010

AFFIRMED

Irby E. Walker, Jr., of Galivants Ferry, for Appellant.

Kathryn M. Cook, of North Myrtle Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mary
Graham appeals the trial court's denial of her motion for a new trial and the
entry of judgment, arguing these decisions were error in light of evidence of
juror misconduct.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:  Rule 606(b), SCRE
(preventing a juror from testifying "to any matter or statement occurring
during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon
that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent
to or dissent from the verdict or indictment"); Raby Constr., L.L.P. v.
Orr, 358 S.C. 10, 17-18, 594 S.E.2d 478, 482 (2004) (placing the
decision whether to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b), SCRCP, within the
sound discretion of the trial judge); Shumpert v. State, 378 S.C. 62, 66,
67, 661 S.E.2d 369, 371 (2008) (recognizing distinction between external and
internal juror misconduct and exclusion of juror testimony concerning internal
misconduct, but also noting exception to this exclusion when misconduct
undermines fundamental fairness of the proceeding); Vestry & Church
Wardens of the Church of the Holy Cross v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 384 S.C.
441, 446, 682 S.E.2d 489, 492 (2009) ("Misconduct that does not affect the
jury's impartiality will not undermine a verdict."); U.S. v. Basham,
561 F.3d 302, 318, 320 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding neither reversible error nor
prejudice where jury foreperson contacted numerous media outlets and placed
seventy-one telephone calls to other jurors during trial (cert. denied, Basham v. U.S., 2010
WL 2160795 (U.S. Jun. 1, 2010) (No. 09-617)); State v. Stone, 320 S.C. 395, 399, 465 S.E.2d 576, 578
(Ct. App. 1995) (holding a juror's "unambiguous and unequivocal response
of 'Guilty' when she was polled cured any doubt regarding whether she assented
to the verdict and cleared up any confusion that may have made her reluctant to
go along with the verdict at first"). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., PIEPER, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur. 

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