State v. Buncum

• Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Decided: May 17, 2010
• Docket: 2010-MO-013
• Status: Unpublished

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 Supreme Court

---

The State, Appellant,

v.

Jason Bernard Buncum, Respondent.

---

Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge

---

Memorandum Opinion No. 2010-MO-013
Heard April 20, 2010 – Filed May 17, 2010 

---

APPEAL DISMISSED

---

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Appellant.

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, Beattie Inglis Butler and Michelle Ranee Suggs, both of Ninth Circuit Public Defender's Office, of Charleston, for Respondent.

---

PER CURIAM:  The State appeals the circuit court's decision granting Jason Bernard Buncum's motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant that was issued during the course of a murder investigation. 

Because the circuit court simultaneously granted a mistrial, we dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Woods, 382 S.C. 153, 158, 676 S.E.2d 128, 131 (2009) ("A mistrial is the equivalent of no trial and leaves the cause pending in the circuit court."); Grooms v. Zander, 246 S.C. 512, 514, 144 S.E.2d 909, 910 (1965) ("A mistrial is the equivalent of no trial and leaves the cause pending in the circuit court.  When the trial of this case was thus terminated, the status of the litigation and of the parties became the same as though no trial had taken place."); Keels v. Powell, 213 S.C. 570, 572, 50 S.E.2d 704, 705 (1948) (recognizing that a court's ruling as to admissibility and competency of testimony during a trial which is later declared a mistrial results "in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties"); Floyd v. Page, 124 S.C. 400, 402, 117 S.E. 409, 409 (1923) ("The effect of the mistrial was to leave the parties litigant in statu quo ante, with the cause still pending for trial in the circuit court.  The rulings of the trial judge in the court below having eventuated in no binding adjudication of the rights of the parties, the appeal is prematurely brought, and jurisdiction thereof may not be entertained."); State v. Smith, 336 S.C. 39, 43-44, 518 S.E.2d 294, 296-97 (Ct. App. 1999) (concluding circuit court judge erred by refusing to allow defendant to present new identification testimony during a retrial given the first trial ended in a mistrial and, thus, was nugatory; remanding case to the circuit court for an in camera hearing to determine whether identification testimony should be suppressed).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.