State v. Barnes

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Barnes

DecidedOctober 11, 2010

Docket2010-UP-427

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Barnes (State v. Barnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Barnes, (S.C. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Steven Louis Barnes, Appellant.

Appeal From Edgefield County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-427
Submitted September 1, 2010 Filed October 11, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Steven Louis Barnes was convicted of throwing bodily fluids and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. On appeal, Barnes argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial when the jury returned deadlocked twice. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-7-1330 (1976) (defining the procedure for when a jury fails to agree); Buff v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 342 S.C. 416, 422, 537 S.E.2d 279, 282 (2000) ("The jury's consent to resume or to discontinue deliberations is determined, either expressly or impliedly, by its response to the trial judge's comments."); Id. ("Accordingly, when a jury has twice indicated it is deadlocked, the trial judge should diplomatically discuss with the jury whether further deliberations could be beneficial."); State v. Crim, 327 S.C. 254, 257, 489 S.E.2d 478, 479 (1997) ("It is well-settled that the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Steven Louis Barnes, Appellant.

Appeal From Edgefield County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-427
Submitted September 1, 2010 Filed October 11, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Steven Louis Barnes was convicted of throwing bodily fluids and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. On appeal, Barnes argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to declare a mistrial when the jury returned deadlocked twice. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 14-7-1330 (1976) (defining the procedure for when a jury fails to agree); Buff v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 342 S.C. 416, 422, 537 S.E.2d 279, 282 (2000) ("The jury's consent to resume or to discontinue deliberations is determined, either expressly or impliedly, by its response to the trial judge's comments."); Id. ("Accordingly, when a jury has twice indicated it is deadlocked, the trial judge should diplomatically discuss with the jury whether further deliberations could be beneficial."); State v. Crim, 327 S.C. 254, 257, 489 S.E.2d 478, 479 (1997) ("It is well-settled that the decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Barnes, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barnes-scctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack