State v. James ( 2017 )

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.
Demetrice Roosevelt James, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002125
Appeal From Richland County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-028
Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., and Solicitor
Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Demetrice James appeals his convictions of attempted armed
robbery, first-degree burglary, and two counts of attempted murder, arguing the
trial court erred in (1) refusing to grant a mistrial after the jury engaged in
premature deliberations and (2) allowing the State to call a rebuttal witness to
testify about James's previous statements to police. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial after the jury
engaged in premature deliberations: 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. Aldret, 333
S.C. 307, 313, 509 S.E.2d 811, 814 (1999) (finding in cases in which a jury
prematurely deliberates without an invitation to do so by the trial court, the
defendant must demonstrate he or she was prejudiced by the premature
deliberations in order to be entitled to a new trial); id. at 315, 509 S.E.2d at 815 ("If
such an allegation arises during trial, the trial court should conduct a hearing to
ascertain if, in fact, such premature deliberations occurred, and if the deliberations
were prejudicial. If requested by the moving party, the court may voir dire the
jurors and, if practicable, 'tailor a cautionary instruction to correct the ascertained
damage.'" (footnote omitted) (quoting United States v. Resko, 3 F.3d 684, 695 (3d
Cir. 1993))).
2. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to call a rebuttal witness
to testify about James's previous statements to police: State v. Huckabee, 388 S.C.
232, 240, 694 S.E.2d 781, 785 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he admission of reply
testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will only result in
reversal if the admission of such testimony is found to be prejudicial."); State v.
Garris, 394 S.C. 336, 350, 714 S.E.2d 888, 896 (Ct. App. 2011) ("Reply testimony
should be limited to rebuttal of matters raised in defense; however, the improper
admission of reply testimony will only result in reversal if the admission of such
testimony is found to be prejudicial."); State v. Stewart, 283 S.C. 104, 106, 320
S.E.2d 447, 449 (1984) ("The admission of testimony which is arguably
contradictory of and in reply to earlier testimony does not constitute an abuse of
discretion.").
AFFIRMED.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.