Court Opinion

ID: 9375954
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 15:10:31.299259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.079579
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                          In The Supreme Court

             The State, Petitioner,

             v.

             Randy Wright, Respondent.

             Appellate Case No. 2021-000146

       ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

                         Appeal from Berkeley County
                        Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

                              Opinion No. 28136
                  Heard February 8, 2023 – Filed March 1, 2023

                                      AFFIRMED

             Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
             Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both
             of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
             Charleston, for Petitioner.

             Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of
             Columbia, for Respondent.

JUSTICE JAMES: A jury found Respondent Randy Wright guilty of assault and
battery of a high and aggravated nature. The court of appeals reversed Wright's
conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred in denying
Wright's request that the jury be individually polled and (2) the trial court's denial of
the request was reversible per se. State v. Wright, 432 S.C. 365, 370, 373, 852 S.E.2d
468, 471-72 (Ct. App. 2020).
        We affirm the court of appeals' well-reasoned opinion, but we are compelled
to note several points. First, as we noted in State v. Linder, "Polling is a practice
whereby the court determines from the jurors individually whether they assented and
still assent to the verdict." 276 S.C. 304, 308, 278 S.E.2d 335, 338 (1981) (emphasis
added). "Individual" polling requires each juror to be individually questioned as to
whether they "assented and still assent to the verdict." Id. Individual polling is
commonly accomplished by separately asking each juror, "Was this your verdict?"
If the answer to that question is "yes," the customary follow-up question is, "Is this
still your verdict?"
       This takes us to the rule we set forth in Linder: "If the request [for individual
polling] is made, a poll must be taken." Id. at 309, 278 S.E.2d at 338. Our holding
in Linder is not an empty one, and we agree with the court of appeals that the denial
of a defendant's request for individual polling is reversible per se.
      Second, while not directly an issue in the case now before us, we conclude a
request, if any, for individual polling must be made immediately after the verdict is
published. We note the common practice for collective polling to be conducted
immediately after the verdict is published; when collective polling is conducted, the
request, if any, for individual polling must take place immediately after the collective
polling is concluded.

       Finally, lest there be any confusion on the point, our decision in Green v. State,
351 S.C. 184, 569 S.E.2d 318 (2002), is undisturbed by our affirmation of the court
of appeals' holding. In a criminal case, trial counsel does not have an affirmative
duty to request the trial court to poll the jury. Id. at 196, 569 S.E.2d at 324.

      We affirm the court of appeals.
AFFIRMED.

BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN and FEW, JJ., concur.