State v. Monroe

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Phillip Monroe, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 28, 2015

Appellate Case No. 2013-000425 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2015)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2013-000425 Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-044

01-28-2015

The State, Respondent, v. Phillip Monroe, Appellant.

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

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.

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

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.