State v. Thomas

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Thomas

339 S.E.2d 129, 287 S.C. 411, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 252

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 16, 1986

Docket22449

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 339 S.E.2d 129 (State v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Thomas, 339 S.E.2d 129, 287 S.C. 411, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 252 (S.C. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Ness, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature arising out of an assault on an elderly store clerk. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

During closing argument, the solicitor told the jury the case had already been examined by a magistrate and a grand jury, and a preliminary hearing had been held. He also said an appeal would enable a higher court to review any decision made by them.

We have repeatedly condemned closing arguments that lessen the jury’s sense of responsibility by reference to preliminary determinations of the facts. See, e.g., Thompson v. Aiken, 281 S. C. 239, 315 S. E. (2d) 110 (1984); State v. Sloan, 278 S. C. 435, 298 S. E. (2d) 92 (1982); State v. Butler, 277 S. C. 543, 290 S. E. (2d) 420 (1982); State v. Woomer, 277 S. C. 170, 284 S. E. (2d) 357 (1981). We have also found error where the jury was advised their decision was subject to appellate review. State v. Tyner, 273 S. C. 646, 258 S. E. (2d) 559 (1979).

These statements to the jury are improper because they inject an arbitrary factor into jury deliberations. The dan *413 ger is that a jury might be persuaded to rely on the opinion of others instead of exercising his independent judgment as to the facts. 75 Am. Jur. (2d), Trial, Section 261, p. 338. “Jurors are simply not to consider the opinions of neighbors, officials or even other juries.” State v. Smart, 278 S. C. 515, 526, 299 S. E. (2d) 686 (1982). We caution solicitors that arguments of this kind can rarely be harmless.

In light of our reversal on this issue, it is unnecessary to reach appellant’s other exceptions.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

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

Ness, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted of armed robbery and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature arising out of an assault on an elderly store clerk. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

During closing argument, the solicitor told the jury the case had already been examined by a magistrate and a grand jury, and a preliminary hearing had been held. He also said an appeal would enable a higher court to review any decision made by them.

We have repeatedly condemned closing arguments that lessen the jury’s sense of responsibility by reference to preliminary determinations of the facts. See, e.g., Thompson v. Aiken, 281 S. C. 239, 315 S. E. (2d) 110 (1984); State v. Sloan, 278 S. C. 435, 298 S. E. (2d) 92 (1982); State v. Butler, 277 S. C. 543, 290 S. E. (2d) 420 (1982); State v. Woomer, 277 S. C. 170, 284 S. E. (2d) 357 (1981). We have also found error where the jury was advised their decision was subject to appellate review. State v. Tyner, 273 S. C. 646, 258 S. E. (2d) 559 (1979).

These statements to the jury are improper because they inject an arbitrary factor into jury deliberations. The dan *413 ger is that a jury might be persuaded to rely on the opinion of others instead of exercising his independent judgment as to the facts. 75 Am. Jur. (2d), Trial, Section 261, p. 338. “Jurors are simply not to consider the opinions of neighbors, officials or even other juries.” State v. Smart, 278 S. C. 515, 526, 299 S. E. (2d) 686 (1982). We caution solicitors that arguments of this kind can rarely be harmless.

In light of our reversal on this issue, it is unnecessary to reach appellant’s other exceptions.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 129, 287 S.C. 411, 1986 S.C. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-sc-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack