Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2004-UP-002 - State v. Dickerson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Joseph Dickerson        Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
Marc H. Westbrook, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-002
Submitted December 15, 2003 – Filed January 6, 2004


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Meyers, Eleventh Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Lexington, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  Joseph Dickerson was convicted of criminal conspiracy and four counts of armed robbery.  Dickerson appeals his conviction, arguing the trial court erred by denying Dickerson’s motion for mistrial, or alternatively, refusing to grant a new trial after a witness offered testimony which improperly placed Dickerson’s character in issue.  We affirm [1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483, 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) (the decision to grant or deny a motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 227, 522 S.E.2d 845, 851(Ct.App. 1999) (“[a] mistrial should only be granted in cases of manifest necessity and with the greatest caution for very plain and obvious reasons.”); State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) (the moving party has the burden to show not only error, but resulting prejudice);  State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 70, 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998) (“[t]he granting of the motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure which should be taken only where an incident is so grievous that prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.”). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, STILWELL, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


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