State v. Villiers ( 2011 )

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 Villiers, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Horry County
Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-555
Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed December 9, 2011   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Villiers appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature.  He argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial made after a witness testified during his trial for assault and battery with intent to kill that Villiers was asked to leave a club after offering cocaine to various persons inside the club.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443, 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417, 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The granting of a motion for mistrial is an extreme measure that should be taken only when the incident is so grievous the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way."); id. ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial.");  White, 371 S.C. at 444, 639 S.E.2d at 162 ("The trial [court] should first exhaust other methods to cure possible prejudice before aborting a trial.");  State v. Spears, 393 S.C. 466, 485, 713 S.E.2d 324, 334 (Ct. App. 2011) ("An instruction to disregard incompetent evidence usually is deemed to have cured the error in its admission unless . . . it is probable that notwithstanding such instruction or withdrawal the accused was prejudiced." (citation omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

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