State v. Michael Glenn Hall

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.

Michael Glenn Hall, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2016-001778

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-345
Submitted June 1, 2018 – Filed August 1, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Coaxum, 410 S.C. 320, 328, 764 S.E.2d 242, 246 (2014)
(providing that when "a juror's nondisclosure is unintentional, the trial court may
exercise its discretion in determining whether to proceed with the trial with the jury
as is, replace the juror with an alternate, or declare a mistrial"); State v. Bell, 374
S.C. 136, 147, 646 S.E.2d 888, 894 (Ct. App. 2007) ("A decision on whether to
dismiss a juror and replace her with an alternate is within the sound discretion of
the trial court, and such decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of
discretion."); Coaxum, 410 S.C. at 329, 764 S.E.2d at 246 ("[T]he moving party
has a heightened burden to show that the concealed information indicates the juror
is potentially biased, and that the concealed information would have been a
material factor in the party's exercise of its peremptory challenges. In other words,
the moving party must show that it was prejudiced by the concealment because it
was unable to strike a potential—and material—source of bias."); Thompson v.
O'Rourke, 288 S.C. 13, 15, 339 S.E.2d 505, 506-07 (1986) (noting when the
appellants "did not argue at the trial level that the use of their peremptory
challenges would have been altered by disclosure of the information," the issue
was not preserved for appeal); Coaxum, 410 S.C. at 331, 764 S.E.2d at 247 ("[T]o
receive a new trial, [a] defendant must show a prejudicial abuse of discretion.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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