Court Opinion

ID: 9579359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:54:22.229842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:28.578706
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice
(dissenting):
The majority states our holdings in State v. Penland, 275 S. C. 537, 273 S. E. (2d) 765 (1981) and Adams v. Orr, 260 S. C. 92, 194 S. E. (2d) 232 (1973) are consistent with their results in the present case. I disagree and dissent.
In Penland, supra, we held:
“Although counsel objected to the remarks of the solicitor during closing arguments, a motion for a mistrial was not made until after the verdict. One may not preserve a vice until he learns what the result will be and then, take advantage of the error on appeal____Ap-pellant’s failure to move for a mistrial constituted waiver.” 275 S. C. at 538, 273 S. E. (2d) 765.
Here no motion for mistrial was ever made, yet appellant seeks to take advantage of this error on appeal even though no opportunity was afforded the trial judge to rule on the question. This was in violation of our numerous previous decisions that failure to move for a mistrial constitutes waiver. See cases enumerated at 3 S. C. Digest, Appeal & Error, Key No. 230.
Likewise in Adams v. Orr, supra, Justice Littlejohn noted, “[c]ounsel for the defendants objected ...” 260 S. C. at 96, 194 S. E. (2d) 232, to the alleged prejudicial comments first made *291by plaintiffs counsel. Similar comments were later made by the trial court in the presence of the jury. The opinion states:
“The jury was then excused and the matter was discussed by counsel with the court, somewhat at length.” 260 S. C. at 96, 194 S. E. (2d) 232.
I strongly disagree with the majority holding that in Adams, supra, we found “no objection had been made at anytime during the trial____” Clearly the notation of counsel’s original objection and the fact the matter was discussed at length with the court contradicts the majority’s distinguishing factor.
Here, as in Adams and Penland, counsel objected to remarks made in the presence of the jury. Further, as in Adams, no request for curative instructions or motion for mistrial was made.
Appellant asserts his failure to make any further motions before the court was due to statements by the trial judge which indicated the court would not grant any curative relief.
However, regardless of counsel’s belief the trial judge would refuse any further requests, no opportunity was afforded the trial judge to rule upon the question and correct his error.
Moreover, recently we unanimously affirmed these fundamental requirements of appellant’s review in Holston v. Jackson, S. C., 292 S. E. (2d) 794, which concludes:
“Although counsel for appellant timely objected to respondent’s counsel’s statement, — a ruling on the objection was not made by the trial judge. Counsel for appellant did not pursue a ruling, request a curative instruction, or move for a mistrial.” (Page 795 of the opinion).
I cannot find any sufficiently distinguishing factor among these holdings to warrant the majority’s contrary result and would affirm under our holding in Adams which states:
“In disposing of the issue, we think it sufficient to say that a mistrial was not requested on this ground, nor did counsel ask the judge to instruct the jury to disregard the remark, nor was a new trial requested because of the incident. No opportunity was afforded the trial judge to *292rule upon the question. The exception is not subject to review.” 260 S. C. at 96, 194 S. E. (2d) 232.
Affirmed.