State v. Sparkman, 25816.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Chief Justice TOAL
• Citation: 596 S.E.2d 375,358 S.C. 491
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent v. Corey SPARKMAN, Petitioner.
• Docket Number: No. 25816.,25816.
• Decision Date: 03 May 2004

358 S.C. 491
596 S.E.2d 375

The STATE, Respondent
v.
Corey SPARKMAN, Petitioner

No. 25816.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard March 4, 2004.

Decided May 3, 2004.

358 S.C. 493

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia, for petitioner

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and John Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for respondent.

Chief Justice TOAL:

Petitioner Corey Sparkman ("Sparkman") was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He now seeks to reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling affirming the trial judge's denial of his motion for mistrial. Sparkman alleges that during voir dire, the jury's foreman, Arthur Scott ("Scott"), intentionally concealed that he had been the victim of an assault and that this concealment materially diminished Sparkman's use of peremptory challenges and wrongfully influenced the jury, resulting in his conviction. We disagree and affirm Sparkman's conviction.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On March 31, 2001, at approximately 2:15 a.m., two men entered a Days Inn in Myrtle Beach. Christopher Newton ("Newton"), the assistant manager, was in the back office counting money when he heard the men at the front desk. When the men requested a room, Newton told them that none

358 S.C. 494

were available, so the men turned to leave. As Newton returned to the back office, the men accosted him. The taller of the two men drew a switchblade and demanded money. He took money from the cash drawers and then demanded that Newton open the safe. After Newton told the men that he could not open the safe, the taller man stabbed Newton twice in the shoulder. Then, the shorter man struck Newton in the head and knocked him unconscious. When Newton regained consciousness, he called the police

During questioning, the police asked Newton to identify his attackers out of a photo line-up. He identified Sparkman as one of his attackers—on two separate occasions—from two different photographs.¹

During voir dire, the trial judge asked the venire members whether they had been a victim of a serious crime. Scott did not stand up. The trial judge asked those who stood up whether being a victim of a crime would affect their ability to be impartial during deliberation, and they all replied that it would not. None of the people who stood up were drawn for the jury. However, Scott was drawn and named foreman.

After deliberating for eight hours, the jury found Sparkman guilty.² Because the jury did not present a verdict until the late evening, the trial judge postponed Sparkman's sentencing hearing until the following morning.

Sometime before the sentencing hearing, a member of the jury, Regina Jenerette ("Jenerette"), contacted the public defender's office and told Sparkman's attorney that a fellow juror might have decided to convict Sparkman based upon "something that happened in [sic] him in the past." At the hearing, Jenerette testified that during jury deliberation, upon discussing eyewitness credibility, Scott announced that forty years ago he had been the victim of an attack and that he

358 S.C. 495

would never forget the face of his attacker.³ The trial judge questioned Scott about the past incident, asking Scott why he did not stand up during voir dire and inform the parties that he was a victim of a serious crime. Scott explained that he did not remember his attack until after deliberations began and that he was unsure whether the attack was a "serious" crime

The trial judge then asked every jury member whether Scott's recount of his attack affected their decision to convict Sparkman, and they unanimously replied that it did not, including Jenerette.

Sparkman's counsel then made a motion for mistrial, which was denied, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Sparkman submits the following issue for review:

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial judge's denial of Sparkman's motion for mistrial based upon juror misconduct?

LAW/ANALYSIS

Sparkman argues that this Court should overturn his conviction because (1) Scott intentionally concealed that he was...