State v. Collins ( 2016 )

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.
Tyrel Rashone Collins, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-000216
Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-034
Submitted December 1, 2015 – Filed January 20, 2016
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Tyrel Rashone Collins appeals his conviction for murder and
possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, arguing (1) the
trial court erred in limiting the introduction of evidence of the victim's reputation
for violence in the community because the evidence was necessary to Collins's
presentation of a complete defense and because the prosecutor opened the door to
such evidence during his opening statement and (2) Collins's second trial was
barred by double jeopardy because the grant of a mistrial during his opening
statement at the first trial was not dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of
public justice. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in limiting the introduction of evidence of the
victim's reputation for violence in the community: State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114,
127, 551 S.E.2d 240, 247 (2001) ("The trial court is given broad discretion in
ruling on questions concerning the relevancy of evidence, and its decision will be
reversed only if there is a clear abuse of discretion."); Rule 402, SCRE ("Evidence
which is not relevant is not admissible."); State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 341, 748
S.E.2d 194, 206 (2013) ("[E]vidence of third-party guilt that only tends to raise a
conjectural inference that [a] third party, rather than the defendant, committed the
crime should be excluded.").
2. As to whether Collins's second trial was barred by double jeopardy because a
mistrial was improvidently granted in the first trial: State v. Coleman, 365 S.C.
258, 263, 616 S.E.2d 444, 446 (Ct. App. 2005) ("Under the law of double
jeopardy, a defendant may not be prosecuted for the same offense after an
acquittal, a conviction, or an improvidently granted mistrial."); State v. Baum, 355
S.C. 209, 214, 584 S.E.2d 419, 422 (Ct. App. 2003) ("Generally, jeopardy attaches
when the jury is sworn and impaneled, unless the defendant consents to the jury's
discharge before it reaches a verdict or legal necessity mandates the jury's
discharge."); State v. Cooper, 334 S.C. 540, 551, 514 S.E.2d 584, 590 (1999) ("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 unless an abuse of
discretion amounting to an error of law occurs."); Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S.
497, 511 (1978) ("[T]he overriding interest in the evenhanded administration of
justice requires that we accord the highest degree of respect to the trial judge's
evaluation of the likelihood that the impartiality of one or more jurors may have
been affected by the improper comment.").
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.