State v. Monroe

CourtListener 10148761Scctapp28 de jan. de 2015

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

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.

Phillip Monroe, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000425

Appeal From Jasper County
Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-044
Heard January 5, 2015 – Filed January 28, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone,
III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this appeal from two drug-related convictions, Phillip Monroe
argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when a law
enforcement officer twice mentioned during his testimony a polygraph
examination given to Monroe immediately before one of his confessions to the
drug convictions but no results were introduced. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 90,
512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999) (holding "the mere inadvertent mention of the offer to
take a polygraph" did not constitute reversible error); Ellenburg v. State, 367 S.C.
66, 69, 625 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2006) (concluding in ineffective assistance of counsel
claim "the mere mention of a polygraph during testimony is not prejudicial where .
. . no results are introduced into evidence"); Bruno v. State, 347 S.C. 446, 451-52,
556 S.E.2d 393, 396 (2001) (finding no prejudice in ineffective assistance of
counsel claim when a polygraph was mentioned without elicitation by the State
and no results were entered into evidence); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 585-86,
698 S.E.2d 862, 865-66 (Ct. App. 2010) (affirming the denial of a mistrial even
assuming the trial court erred because the defendant did not prove prejudice).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, AND KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.