Opinion ID: 1392841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: assistant solicitor's opening statement

Text: The defendant argues that a mistrial should have been granted because of remarks made during the assistant solicitor's opening argument. Dawkins argues that these remarks constituted a comment to the jury suggesting that he would testify and produce witnesses and evidence in his favor and that the curative instruction was not sufficient. We disagree. During his opening statement, the assistant solicitor made the following remarks: Please listen very closely to all the evidence, every witness the State has and every witness for the defense. Once you see the two stories side by side and hear the testimony, you'll be convinced.... The trial judge sua sponte requested a bench conference and then excused the jury. After consideration, the judge determined that although the remarks suggested that Dawkins would put up witnesses, it was not a comment on the defendant's silence or a direct statement that the defendant was going to testify. The trial judge then gave the following curative instruction to the jury: Mr. Foreman, ladies and gentlemen of the jury panel, a few moments ago in the solicitor's opening statement, he, as a statement to you, stated that you should listen to the witnesses for the State and the defense, and then compare the two and make your decision. I would instruct you at this time, ladies and gentlemen, that if in any way you construe that  or could have construed that statement to mean that the defendant is under any obligation whatsoever to call witnesses in his behalf, that impression you got was mistaken. Our constitution provides, and always has provided, that a defendant is never required to put up witnesses in a case in any type attempt to prove that the defendant is not guilty. The burden is always on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and there is no requirement for a defendant to call any witnesses of any type. So, I wanted to disabuse your mind if you did gain that impression from the solicitor's remarks. Whether to grant or deny a motion for mistrial is within the discretion of the trial judge and such ruling will not be overturned in the absence of abuse thereof amounting to an error of law. State v. Arnold , 226 S.C. 153, 221 S.E. (2d) 867 (1976); State v. Craig , 267 S.C. 262, 227 S.E. (2d) 306 (1976). In addition, an instruction to disregard incompetent evidence usually is deemed to have cured the error in its admission.... A mistrial should not be ordered in every case where incompetent evidence is received and later stricken out. Here, the trial judge determined that the remarks merely suggested that Dawkins would put up witnesses rather than insinuate that Dawkins would testify. In accordance with this determination, the judge instructed the jury that the defendant is never required to produce witnesses and that the burden is on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that this curative instruction was fully sufficient under the circumstances and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the mistrial. We also note that no prejudice was suffered by Dawkins considering the fact that twenty-five witnesses, including Mr. Dawkins, appeared on behalf of the defense.