64 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Stanleygreen2 sentences2023See 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."); 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." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63 , 530 S.E.2d at 628 )). 2. 2023See 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."); 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." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63 , 530 S.E.2d at 628 )). 2. | 15 | 20 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2023See 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."); 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." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63 , 530 S.E.2d at 628 )). 2. 2023See 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."); 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." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63 , 530 S.E.2d at 628 )). 2. | 11 | 16 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2024"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." Id. 2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is | 9 | 12 |
State v. Wileygreen2 sentences2021See Wiley, 387 S.C. at 495 , 692 S.E.2d at 563 (holding the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law); id. ("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."). 2021See Wiley, 387 S.C. at 495 , 692 S.E.2d at 563 (holding the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law); id. ("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."). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Councilgreen2 sentences2014As to whether the trial court erred in admitting tool-mark identification testimony: State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 269 , 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony will not be reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562, 573 , 541 S.E.2d 813, 819 (2001) (stating to evaluate the reliability of scientific testimony, a trial court must consider the following factors: "(1) the publications and peer reviews of the technique; (2) prior application of the method to the type of evidence involved in the case; (3) the 2011“In order to receive a mistrial, the defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice.” Id. | 6 | 9 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2026The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.") (citation omitted); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579 , 585–86, 698 S.E.2d 862 , 865 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial."); id. ("Insubstantial errors that do not impact the result of the case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence." (quoting State v. White, 371 S.C. 439 , 447–48, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. 2026The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.") (citation omitted); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579 , 585–86, 698 S.E.2d 862 , 865 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial."); id. ("Insubstantial errors that do not impact the result of the case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence." (quoting State v. White, 371 S.C. 439 , 447–48, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. | 6 | 6 |
State v. BANTANgreen2 sentences2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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." (quoting Sta 2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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." (quoting Sta | 4 | 5 |
State v. Rowlandsgreen2 sentences2009“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.” Id. “ ‘The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983)). “ ‘Whether a mistrial is manifestly necessary is a fact specific inquiry.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Rowlands, 343 S.C. 454, 457 , 539 S.E.2d 717, 719 (Ct.App.2000)). 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.” Id. “ ‘The less than lucid test is therefore declared to be whether the mistrial was dictated by manifest necessity or the ends of public justice.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 33 , 301 S.E.2d 471, 472 (1983)). “ ‘Whether a mistrial is manifestly necessary is a fact specific inquiry.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Rowlands, 343 S.C. 454, 457 , 539 S.E.2d 717, 719 (Ct.App.2000)). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2026The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.") (citation omitted); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579 , 585–86, 698 S.E.2d 862 , 865 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial."); id. ("Insubstantial errors that do not impact the result of the case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence." (quoting State v. White, 371 S.C. 439 , 447–48, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. 2026The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law.") (citation omitted); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579 , 585–86, 698 S.E.2d 862 , 865 (Ct. App. 2010) ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial."); id. ("Insubstantial errors that do not impact the result of the case do not warrant a mistrial when guilt is conclusively proven by competent evidence." (quoting State v. White, 371 S.C. 439 , 447–48, 639 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2018As to whether the trial court erred by denying Williams's motion for a mistrial: State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("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."); id. ("The granting of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure that should only be taken if an incident is so grievous that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other 2018As to whether the trial court erred by denying Williams's motion for a mistrial: State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("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."); id. ("The granting of a motion for a mistrial is an extreme measure that should only be taken if an incident is so grievous that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other | 3 | 3 |
State v. Princegreen2 sentences2015As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when an investigator improperly placed Agurs's character and prior arrests at issue: State v. Crim, 327 S.C. 254, 257 , 489 S.E.2d 478 , 479 (1997) ("[T]he decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); 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." (quoting State v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63 , 5 2015As to whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant a mistrial when an investigator improperly placed Agurs's character and prior arrests at issue: State v. Crim, 327 S.C. 254, 257 , 489 S.E.2d 478 , 479 (1997) ("[T]he decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial [court]."); 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." (quoting State v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63 , 5 | 3 | 3 |
State v. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. the trial [court]."); id. at 34 , 615 S.E.2d at 460 ("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."); id. ("A mistrial should only be granted when 'absolutely necessary,' and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order 2017See State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 33 , 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of 1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. the trial [court]."); id. at 34 , 615 S.E.2d at 460 ("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."); id. ("A mistrial should only be granted when 'absolutely necessary,' and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order | 2 | 4 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 369 , 675 S.E.2d 764, 769 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for mistrial, and the court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary."); id. ("To receive a mistrial, a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice."). 2026See State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 369 , 675 S.E.2d 764, 769 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The trial court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for mistrial, and the court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary."); id. ("To receive a mistrial, a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice."). | 2 | 2 |
Simmons v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is 2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is | 2 | 2 |
State v. Coopergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is 2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kirbygreen2 sentences2023See 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."); 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." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63 , 530 S.E.2d at 628 )). 2. 2023See 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."); 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." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63 , 530 S.E.2d at 628 )). 2. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adkinsgreen2 sentences2019See State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 369 , 675 S.E.2d 764, 769 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[I]t is impermissible for the State to comment directly or indirectly upon a defendant's failure to testify at trial." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 319 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App. 2003))); State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 1 2019See State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 369 , 675 S.E.2d 764, 769 (Ct. App. 2009) ("[I]t is impermissible for the State to comment directly or indirectly upon a defendant's failure to testify at trial." (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 319 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App. 2003))); State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 1 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483 , 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) ("Among the factors to be considered in ordering a mistrial are the character of the testimony, the circumstances under which it was offered, the nature of the case, and the other testimony in the c 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483 , 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) ("Among the factors to be considered in ordering a mistrial are the character of the testimony, the circumstances under which it was offered, the nature of the case, and the other testimony in the c | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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." (quoting Sta 2017PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Bantan, 387 S.C. 412, 417 , 692 S.E.2d 201, 203 (Ct. App. 2010) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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." (quoting Sta | 2 | 2 |
State v. Goodwingreen2 sentences2016A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial." (citations omitted)); State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 605 , 683 S.E.2d 500, 509 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The relevant question is whether the solicitor's comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." (quoting State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 17 , 482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997))). 2016A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial." (citations omitted)); State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 605 , 683 S.E.2d 500, 509 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The relevant question is whether the solicitor's comments so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process." (quoting State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 17 , 482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997))). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Herringgreen2 sentences2018As to issue three: State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 265-66 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 617 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hether to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009))); id. at 266 , 717 S.E.2d at 617 ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of c 2018As to issue three: State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 265-66 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 617 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hether to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009))); id. at 266 , 717 S.E.2d at 617 ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of c | 1 | 2 |
State v. Simpsongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is 2024See State v. Simpson, 325 S.C. 37, 43 , 479 S.E.2d 57, 60 (1996) ("The granting of a mistrial is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); 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."); Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333, 338 , 503 S.E.2d 164, 166-67 (1998) ("The relevant question is | 1 | 1 |
State v. Copelandgreen2 sentences2022See Stanley, 365 S.C. at 34 , 615 S.E.2d at 460 (holding "a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial"); State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 324 , 468 S.E.2d 620 , 624–25 (1996) ("On appeal, the appellate court will view the alleged impropriety of the solicitor's argument in the context of the entire record."). 2022See Stanley, 365 S.C. at 34 , 615 S.E.2d at 460 (holding "a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial"); State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 324 , 468 S.E.2d 620 , 624–25 (1996) ("On appeal, the appellate court will view the alleged impropriety of the solicitor's argument in the context of the entire record."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Logangreen2 sentences2021We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dennison's motion for a mistrial because it was not error for the trial court to recharge the jury on the correct law.2 See State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resul 2021We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dennison's motion for a mistrial because it was not error for the trial court to recharge the jury on the correct law.2 See State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resul | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brandtgreen2 sentences2021We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dennison's motion for a mistrial because it was not error for the trial court to recharge the jury on the correct law.2 See State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resul 2021We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dennison's motion for a mistrial because it was not error for the trial court to recharge the jury on the correct law.2 See State v. Harris, 382 S.C. 107, 117 , 674 S.E.2d 532, 537 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("The trial court's decision will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."); id. ("A mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resul | 1 | 1 |
Stoney v. SRgreen1 sentence2020See Stoney v. Stoney, 422 S.C. 593 , 594 n.2, 813 S.E.2d 486 , 486 n.2 (2018) (providing that this court reviews the family court's procedural rulings for an abuse of discretion); State v. Wiley, 387 S.C. 490, 495 , 692 S.E.2d 560, 563 (Ct. App. 2010) ("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."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483 , 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) ("Among the factors to be considered in ordering a mistrial are the character of the testimony, the circumstances under which it was offered, the nature of the case, and the other testimony in the c 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483 , 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) ("Among the factors to be considered in ordering a mistrial are the character of the testimony, the circumstances under which it was offered, the nature of the case, and the other testimony in the c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Howardgreen2 sentences2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483 , 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) ("Among the factors to be considered in ordering a mistrial are the character of the testimony, the circumstances under which it was offered, the nature of the case, and the other testimony in the c 2019We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. White, 371 S.C. 439, 443 , 639 S.E.2d 160, 162 (Ct. App. 2006) ("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. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 483 , 374 S.E.2d 284, 285 (1988) ("Among the factors to be considered in ordering a mistrial are the character of the testimony, the circumstances under which it was offered, the nature of the case, and the other testimony in the c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hatchergreen2 sentences2018As to issue three: State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 265-66 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 617 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hether to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009))); id. at 266 , 717 S.E.2d at 617 ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of c 2018As to issue three: State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 265-66 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 617 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hether to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009))); id. at 266 , 717 S.E.2d at 617 ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of c | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sweetgreen2 sentences2018As to issue three: State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 265-66 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 617 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hether to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009))); id. at 266 , 717 S.E.2d at 617 ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of c 2018As to issue three: State v. Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 265-66 , 717 S.E.2d 614, 617 (Ct. App. 2011) ("[W]hether to grant or deny a mistrial is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 216 , 692 S.E.2d 490, 498 (2009))); id. at 266 , 717 S.E.2d at 617 ("A mistrial should be granted only when absolutely necessary, and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice to be entitled to a mistrial."); State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95 , 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The ultimate goal of c | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chisholmgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Beamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McEacherngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bryantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pagegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pattersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Reskogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Douglasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Manninggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Crim green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Cuevas green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.