State v. Jackson ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Dontavious Hugo Jackson, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2010-180346
    Appeal From Darlington County
    J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-476
    Submitted July 2, 2012 – Filed August 1, 2012
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer and Appellate
    Defender Susan B. Hackett, both of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
    General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
    Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
    Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and
    Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Dontavious Hugo Jackson appeals his convictions of first-degree
    burglary and grand larceny, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a
    mistrial after a member of the jury venire panel announced to the court and other
    potential jurors that Jackson was a suspect in another burglary. We affirm1
    pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Harris,
    
    340 S.C. 59
    , 63, 
    530 S.E.2d 626
    , 627-28 (2000) ("The granting or refusing of a
    motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling
    will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error
    of law."); State v. Walker, 
    366 S.C. 643
    , 658, 
    623 S.E.2d 122
    , 129 (Ct. App. 2005)
    ("Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any alleged error.");
    Foye v. State, 
    335 S.C. 586
    , 590 n.1, 
    518 S.E.2d 265
    , 267 n.1 (1999) (explaining
    jurors are presumed to have followed curative instructions and absent some
    showing of prejudice appellate courts will not presume prejudice).
    AFFIRMED.
    WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-UP-476

Filed Date: 8/1/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024