State v. Rouse

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Lerone J. Rouse,       
Appellant.

Appeal From
Charleston County

Jackson
V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished
Opinion No. 03-UP-151

Submitted
December 9, 2003 – Filed February 20, 2003   

AFFIRMED

Katherine Carruth Link, of Columbia, for
appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, of Columbia; Ralph E. Hoisington,
of Charleston; for respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  Lerone J. Rouse appeals his convictions for first degree
burglary, armed robbery, first degree criminal sexual conduct, and two counts
of  kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence and his motion for mistrial. 

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: 
Issue I:  State v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554-55, 524 S.E.2d
394, 397-98 (1999) (AFranks addressed an act of commission in which
false information had been included in the warrant affidavit.  However, the
Franks test also applies to acts of omission in which exculpatory material
is left out of the affidavit.  To be entitled to a Franks hearing for an alleged
omission, the challenger must make a preliminary showing that the information
in question was omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard
of whether it made, the affidavit misleading to the issuing judge.  There
will be no Franks violation if the affidavit, including the omitted data,
still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause. . . . 
[T]he Fourth Amendment does not require an affiant to include all potentially
exculpatory evidence in the affidavit.@); United States v. Williams,
730 F. Supp. 455 (D. D.C. 1990) (upholding search warrant based in part on
detective=s affidavit that defendant Astrongly resembled@ composite drawing
of wanted suspect); Issue II:  State v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59,
63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) (AA mistrial should only be granted when absolutely
necessary.  In order to receive a mistrial, the defendant must show error
and resulting prejudice.@) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added); State
v. Kelsey, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69, 331 S.C. 50, 73 (1998) (AThe decision to
grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge
and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.@). 

AFFIRMED. 

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur.