State v. Jackson

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Dontavious Hugo Jackson, Appellant. Appellate…

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 1, 2012

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-476 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-476

08-01-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Dontavious Hugo Jackson, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2010-180346

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.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted July 2, 2012.

Appeal From Darlington County J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge.

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 affirm¹pursuant 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).

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

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.