State v. Stegall

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.

Richard
Stegall, Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-399

Heard July 22, 2009 – Filed August 5, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Scott David Robinson, of Greenville, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Richard Horace Stegall was indicted and tried for murder.  During its second
day of deliberations, the jury notified the trial judge it was deadlocked.  The
jury returned to the courtroom, and the trial judge issued an Allen charge.[1] 
Neither the State nor Stegall objected to the charge.  Later that afternoon,
the jury sent the trial judge a note that said, "We still have jurors who
are firmly decided to different verdicts."  Both the trial judge and
counsel for the parties understood this note to indicate continuing deadlock. 
After declaring a mistrial, the trial judge adjourned court and walked to the
jury room.  The jury informed him they were not deadlocked and would like to
take another vote.  The trial judge immediately left the jury room, returning to
the courtroom eight minutes after he had left it. 

Between the trial judge's return to the courtroom and his
statement on the record of what transpired in the jury room, the jury notified
the bailiff it had reached a verdict.  The trial judge conferred extensively
with counsel concerning how to proceed.  While the State favored accepting the
jury's verdict, Stegall maintained a mistrial was appropriate because the trial
judge had impermissibly entered the jury room.  Given an opportunity to
indicate anonymously whether the trial judge's appearance in the jury room had
influenced their decision, the jurors responded it had not.  The trial judge
then published the verdict of voluntary manslaughter and had the court clerk
poll the jury.  At Stegall's request, the trial judge delayed sentencing. 

At the sentencing hearing, the trial judge conferred with counsel
to determine whether either the State or Stegall had reconsidered its position
on the issue of mistrial.  The State still desired acceptance of the verdict. 
Stegall reconsidered and stated, "Your Honor, after consulting with my
client, we would accept the verdict of voluntary manslaughter."  Stegall
was then sentenced to twenty-eight years' imprisonment.  This appeal followed. 

Stegall argues the trial judge committed reversible error by
entering the jury room during deliberations.  We disagree. 

Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to declare
a mistrial.  State v. Ferguson, 376 S.C. 615, 618, 658 S.E.2d 101, 103   (2008).  An appellate court will not reverse the grant or denial of a mistrial "absent
an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."  Id.  The
grant of a mistrial is "a serious and extreme measure which should only be
taken when the prejudice can be removed no other way."  Id. at
618-19, 658 S.E.2d at 103. 

Entering the jury's verdict instead of declaring a mistrial was
within the trial judge's broad discretion in this case.  A party who has
invited or induced a particular ruling by the trial court cannot complain of it
on appeal, even if the ruling was error.  See Floyd v. Thornton,
220 S.C. 414, 425-26, 68 S.E.2d 334, 339 (1951).  Although Stegall initially
opposed the jury's verdict because the trial judge entered the jury room during
deliberations, he ultimately accepted the verdict without objection.  Stegall
cannot complain on appeal of a result to which he acceded.  Therefore, the
decision of the trial judge is

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

[1] When a jury indicates deadlock, a judge may issue an Allen charge, encouraging them "to approach the evidence with an open mind and
consider the opinions of their fellow jurors."  State v. Robinson,
360 S.C. 187, 193, 600 S.E.2d 100, 103 (Ct. App. 2004); see Allen v.
U.S., 164 U.S. 492, 501-02 (1896).