State v. Lake, 19349
| Citation | 186 S.E.2d 256,257 S.C. 407 |
| Decision Date | 11 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 19349,19349 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James LAKE, Appellant. |
Robert B. Nance and H. Carter Siegling, Columbia, for appellant.
Sol. John Foard, Jr. and Edmund H. Monteith, Asst. Sol., Columbia, for respondent.
At a trial commenced on December 16, 1970 and concluded the following day, the defendant-appellant was convicted of armed robbery and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Although two questions are stated and argued on appeal, essentially there is only one question involved. It is contended that a mistrial should have been ordered because of the asserted emotional distress of a woman juror as to the welfare of her children. It is conceded that the ordering of, or refusal of a motion for, a mistrial is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and that his discretion thereabout will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.
The jury received the case at 11:54 A.M. on December 17, and returned a verdict at 11 P.M. that night. The record would indicate that approximately seven hours were consumed in deliberation, the jury having had lunch in the jury room; been taken out for supper; returned to the court room to hear the testimony of one witness and on another occasion with a request for additional instructions. At 5:54 P.M., when the judge was preparing to send the jurors to supper, it was brought to his attention that a lady juror had children at home with her husband, who was supposed to go to work at three o'clock the following morning, some nine hours later, and that there would be no one else to stay with the children if she were not home by that time. The judge, with the consent of counsel, allowed this juror to go to the telephone for the purpose of discussing the problem of the children with her husband.
Counsel for the defendant made no motion then but did express concern to the Court as to whether the juror's concern for her children would aversely affect her proper and due deliberation. At 9:45 P.M. counsel for defendant again expressed concern to the Court but still made no motion for a mistrial. In response, the Court had the following to say:
'I understand, and I thought it was general knowledge that the lady who made the telephone call, with your consent, to her husband has learned that her husband has probably arranged some swap of his shift so that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oldaker
...He voluntarily decided he could continue to hear the case. In State v. McCray, Tenn.Cr.App., 614 S.W.2d 90 (1981), and State v. Lake, 257 S.C. 407, 186 S.E.2d 256 (1972), trial courts refused mistrials after distraught jurors were questioned about their ability to continue, and then they di......
-
State v. Goolsby
...of the trial judge, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. State v. Lake, 257 S.C. 407, 186 S.E.2d 256 (1972). There is no abuse (11) The next contention of appellant is that the solicitor, during his closing argument to the jury, made a......
-
State v. Jackson
...replied 'No amplification, Your Honor.' The ordering or refusal of a mistrial is in the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Lake, 257 S.C. 407, 186 S.E.2d 256 (1972). There was no abuse of discretion. Next, appellant argues error in the introduction into evidence of a pistol and wallet ......
-
State v. Davis, 20294
...siscretion of the trial judge which will not be disturbed upon appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse thereof. State v. Lake, 257 S.C. 407, 186 S.E.2d 256, 257 (1972). There was no error in the denial of the instant motion for Appellant next alleges error in admitting into evidence an ......