State v. White

Decision Date21 December 2006
Docket NumberNo. 4192.,4192.
Citation639 S.E.2d 160
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. James Pondesta WHITE, Appellant.
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals

Assistant Appellate Defender, Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.


James Pondesta White was convicted of distribution of crack cocaine and sentenced to eight years. White appeals, asserting the trial court abused its discretion by not declaring a mistrial after the jury listened to a tape of an in camera hearing that was mistakenly played in the place of trial testimony that the jury requested. We affirm.1


On August 14, 2003, White was involved in the sale of crack cocaine to Mike Lynn. During White's trial, the court held an in camera hearing regarding the identification of White by the State's witness, Lieutenant Jason Dalton. At the hearing, Dalton testified that on the day in question, he was inside a vacant house conducting drug surveillance with binoculars. Dalton watched a white truck drive by very slowly, turn around at the end of the street, and return. White approached the vehicle once it came to a complete stop. Dalton stated that he saw White make a motion with his hand, after which the truck drove away only to come back moments later. When called as a fact witness during trial, Dalton testified similarly.

At the trial, Lynn, the driver of the white truck, professed that when White walked up to his vehicle, he informed White he wanted to buy crack cocaine. Following White's instructions, Lynn circled the block and returned. Upon stopping, he was given crack cocaine by White's brother in exchange for twenty dollars.

In the course of its charge of the law, the court invited the jury to request any part of the trial they would like to have replayed. During deliberation, the jury asked to hear Dalton's testimony. However, the court reporter mistakenly played the testimony from the in camera hearing. In an effort to correct the error, the court inquired if White would like Dalton's trial testimony played. The court noted that if Dalton's complete trial account was replayed, the jury would ultimately hear the direct testimony two additional times but the cross examination only once more. As a way to mitigate any damage possibly caused by the error, the judge suggested that only the cross-examination be heard again. White did not accept the suggestion and moved for a mistrial. The court denied this motion and issued the following curative instruction:

Through an honest mistake what you actually heard was not the trial testimony but the testimony from a matter outside your presence, so disregard in its entirety that testimony that was just played for you, just completely disregard it, and we're going to play the correct testimony for you at this time.

Subsequently Dalton's trial testimony replayed in its entirety.

After the jury returned a guilty verdict, White moved for a mistrial and new trial on the ground that the in camera testimony had been improperly presented to the jury. The judge denied this motion.


White alleges the accidental playing of the in camera hearing violated his constitutional right to a fair trial by an impartial jury and prevented the jury from reaching its verdict only from the evidence properly presented. Specifically, White contends the tape the jury improperly heard "included factual allegations which were peripheral to the hearing's purpose but were repeated at trial as critical evidence in the overall prosecution." He avers that "[m]ost of the in camera testimony was not thoroughly cross-examined because of the hearing's limited purpose." White does not point to any specific factual allegations or testimony that required cross-examination, nor does he identify any material or substantive ways in which the in camera and trial testimony differed.

I. Mistrial

The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law. State v. Crim, 327 S.C. 254, 257, 489 S.E.2d 478, 479 (1997); State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 226, 522 S.E.2d 845, 851 (Ct.App.1999). Our courts favor the exercise of wide discretion of the trial judge in determining the merits of such motion in each individual case. State v. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483, 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988). "It is only in cases of abuse of discretion which result in prejudice that this court will intervene and grant a new trial." State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 94, 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971). "A mistrial should only be granted in cases of manifest necessity and with the greatest caution for very plain and obvious reasons." Patterson, 337 S.C. at 227, 522 S.E.2d at 851; see also State v. Wasson, 299 S.C. 508, 386 S.E.2d 255 (1989); State v. Kirby, 269 S.C. 25, 28, 236 S.E.2d 33, 34 (1977) ("The power of a court to declare a mistrial ought to be used with the greatest caution under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes.").

In State v. Bilton, the South Carolina Supreme Court explained, "the proper general rule is this: `The American cases hold generally that there must be a manifest necessity for the discharge of the jury and leave the Courts to determine in their discretion whether under all the circumstances of each case such necessity exists.'" 156 S.C. 324, 342, 153 S.E. 269, 276 (1930) (emphasis removed). Thus, a mistrial should not be ordered in every case in which incompetent evidence is improperly admitted, State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 89, 512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999); Patterson, 337 S.C. at 227, 522 S.E.2d at 851, and our ruling must hinge on whether a "manifest necessity" for declaring a mistrial existed. See State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33, 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983) ("The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice, the latter being defined as the public's interest in a fair trial designated to end in just judgment.").

The trial judge should first exhaust other methods to cure possible prejudice before aborting a trial. State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999); Wasson, 299 S.C. at 511, 386 S.E.2d at 256; Patterson, 337 S.C. at 227, 522 S.E.2d at 851. Our supreme court has stated, "The granting of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure which should be taken only where an incident is so grievous that prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way." State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 70, 502 S.E.2d 63, 73 (1998).

II. Curative Instruction

"Generally, a curative instruction is deemed to have cured any alleged error." State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658, 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct.App.2005); see also 75B Am. Jur.2d Trial § 1284 (1992) ("By striking the evidence and instructing the jury to ignore it, the court may often cure its error in admitting the evidence, or render such error harmless, even in criminal cases."). "A curative instruction to disregard incompetent evidence and not to consider it during deliberation is deemed to have cured any alleged error in its admission." State v. Walker, 366 S.C. at 658, 623 S.E.2d at 130; see also Kelsey, 331 S.C. at 70, 502 S.E.2d at 73 (instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence is usually viewed as having corrected the error in its admission). "Because a trial court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for review." Patterson, 337 S.C. at 226, 522 S.E.2d at 850; see also State v. George, 323 S.C. 496, 510, 476 S.E.2d 903, 912 (1996) (no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and does not contemporaneously make an additional objection to the sufficiency of the curative charge or move for a mistrial). If the trial judge sustains a timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to have been cured by the instruction. George, 323 S.C. at 510, 476 S.E.2d at 911-12.

State v. Smith, 290 S.C. 393, 350 S.E.2d 923 (1986), addressed the issue of what constitutes a sufficient curative instruction. The supreme court reversed the trial court for its failure to give an adequate instruction after the solicitor improperly asked the psychiatrist if he was aware the defendant had refused to give a statement to the police. The judge asked the members of the jury if anyone remembered the solicitor's question. When one juror responded affirmatively, the judge simply instructed that juror to "forget it" and not to speak with anybody else regarding the question. Id., 290 S.C. at 394, 350 S.E.2d at 924.

Reasoning that the judge's casual remark to "forget" the question did not serve as a curative instruction, the supreme court inculcated:

Great care should be exercised in the "delicate, difficult and important matter" of instructing the jury to disregard incompetent evidence. The jury should be specifically instructed to disregard the evidence, and not to consider it for any purpose during deliberations. A mere general remark excluding the evidence does not cure the error.

Id., 290 S.C. at 395, 350 S.E.2d at 924 (internal citations omitted).

In State v. Patterson, 337 S.C. 215, 522 S.E.2d 845 (Ct.App.1999), the trial court held an in camera hearing regarding a motion to suppress an in-court identification of the defendant because of an allegedly tainted pre-trial photo lineup. Although the judge ruled that unique circumstances in the case would create...

To continue reading

Request your trial
51 cases
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 17, 2014 object to the sufficiency of that charge, renders the issue waived and unpreserved for appellate review.”); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct.App.2006) (stating a curative charge is generally deemed to cure an allegation of error). However, when Twitty identified......
  • Manios v. Nelson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2010 issue for you all to consider. A curative instruction is generally deemed to have cured any alleged error. State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct.App.2006). We find the trial court's curative instruction was sufficient to cure any alleged error arising from the eviden......
  • State v. Collier
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 4, 2017
    ...241, 243 (1990) ("Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the results of the trial."); State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 447, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[O]ur appellate courts have consistently held that trial court should only be reversed when an error is prejud......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2019
    ... ... Dr. Cartie's reference to a "punishment," we ... find the trial court properly cured any prejudice to Johnson ... by striking Dr. Cartie's testimony that Child was sprayed ... with hot water "as a form of punishment ... " ... See State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d ... 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("If the trial judge sustains a ... timely objection to evidence and gives the jury a curative ... instruction that it be disregarded, the error is deemed to ... have been cured by the instruction."); State v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT