Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-139 - State v. Bussey

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.

Todd Maurice Bussey, Appellant.


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


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-139 
Heard March 8, 2011 – Filed April 5, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Todd Bussey appeals his conviction for armed robbery arguing the trial court erred in (1) admitting a gun retrieved from his apartment into evidence, (2) admitting a photo lineup into evidence, and (3) denying his motion for a mistrial after he objected to statements the State made during closing argument.  Bussey abandoned the first two issues during oral argument.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authority: 

As to whether the court erred in denying Bussey's motion for a mistrial: State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 34, 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A mistrial should only be granted when 'absolutely necessary,' and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial." (citations omitted)); State v. Wasson, 299 S.C. 508, 510, 386 S.E.2d 255, 256 (1989) (holding that the grant or refusal of a motion for a mistrial lies "within the sound discretion of the trial court whose ruling will not be disturbed" absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, CJ., THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.