Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-166 - State v. Long

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.

William Long, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Edward B. Cottingham, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-166
Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed March 7, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: William Long appeals his convictions on two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a weapon during a violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when the wrong indictment was inadvertently sent back to the jury.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 585, 698 S.E.2d 862, 865 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court.  The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117, 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("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."); State v. Johnson, 298 S.C. 496, 497-98, 381 S.E.2d 732, 732 (1989) (holding that express consent to the admission of evidence constitutes a waiver of the issue on appeal); State v. Brown, 344 S.C. 70, 75, 543 S.E.2d 552, 554-55 (2001) (holding when other properly admitted testimony revealed essentially the same information, the exposure of the jury to improper evidence is harmless). 

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., HUFF and SHORT, J.J., concur.

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