Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-427 - State v. Barnes

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.

Steven Louis Barnes, Appellant.


Appeal From Edgefield County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-427
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed October 11, 2010


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Steven Louis Barnes was convicted of throwing bodily fluids and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment.  On appeal, Barnes argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial when the jury returned deadlocked twice. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  S.C. Code Ann. § 14-7-1330 (1976) (defining the procedure for when a jury fails to agree); Buff v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 342 S.C. 416, 422, 537 S.E.2d 279, 282 (2000) ("The jury's consent to resume or to discontinue deliberations is determined, either expressly or impliedly, by its response to the trial judge's comments."); Id. ("Accordingly, when a jury has twice indicated it is deadlocked, the trial judge should diplomatically discuss with the jury whether further deliberations could be beneficial."); State v. Crim, 327 S.C. 254, 257, 489 S.E.2d 478, 479 (1997) ("It is well-settled that the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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