State v. Monroe

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Monroe

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

Docket2015-UP-044

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Monroe (State v. Monroe) 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. Monroe, (S.C. Ct. App. 2015).

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.

Phillip Monroe, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000425

Appeal From Jasper County Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-044 Heard January 5, 2015 – Filed January 28, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this appeal from two drug-related convictions, Phillip Monroe argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when a law enforcement officer twice mentioned during his testimony a polygraph examination given to Monroe immediately before one of his confessions to the drug convictions but no results were introduced. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 90, 512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999) (holding "the mere inadvertent mention of the offer to take a polygraph" did not constitute reversible error); Ellenburg v. State, 367 S.C. 66, 69, 625 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2006) (concluding in ineffective assistance of counsel claim "the mere mention of a polygraph during testimony is not prejudicial where . . . no results are introduced into evidence"); Bruno v. State, 347 S.C. 446, 451-52, 556 S.E.2d 393, 396 (2001) (finding no prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claim when a polygraph was mentioned without elicitation by the State and no results were entered into evidence); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 585-86, 698 S.E.2d 862, 865-66 (Ct. App. 2010) (affirming the denial of a mistrial even assuming the trial court erred because the defendant did not prove prejudice).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, AND KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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.

Phillip Monroe, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000425

Appeal From Jasper County Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-044 Heard January 5, 2015 – Filed January 28, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this appeal from two drug-related convictions, Phillip Monroe argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial when a law enforcement officer twice mentioned during his testimony a polygraph examination given to Monroe immediately before one of his confessions to the drug convictions but no results were introduced. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Johnson, 334 S.C. 78, 90, 512 S.E.2d 795, 801 (1999) (holding "the mere inadvertent mention of the offer to take a polygraph" did not constitute reversible error); Ellenburg v. State, 367 S.C. 66, 69, 625 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2006) (concluding in ineffective assistance of counsel claim "the mere mention of a polygraph during testimony is not prejudicial where . . . no results are introduced into evidence"); Bruno v. State, 347 S.C. 446, 451-52, 556 S.E.2d 393, 396 (2001) (finding no prejudice in ineffective assistance of counsel claim when a polygraph was mentioned without elicitation by the State and no results were entered into evidence); State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 585-86, 698 S.E.2d 862, 865-66 (Ct. App. 2010) (affirming the denial of a mistrial even assuming the trial court erred because the defendant did not prove prejudice).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT, AND KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Monroe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monroe-scctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack