State v. Steadman

1

The State, Respondent, v. David Lance Steadman, Appellant.

No. 2023-UP-144

Appellate No. 2020-000336

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

April 5, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted March 1, 2023

Appeal From Lexington County Eugene C. Griffith, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia, and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:

David Lance Steadman appeals his conviction for homicide by child abuse and sentence of twenty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Steadman argues the trial court erroneously denied his motions for a mistrial after (1) a witness testified regarding the victim's brittle bones and previous leg breaks, which the trial court held was inadmissible in a pretrial hearing and (2) the State, during its closing argument, told the jury it had a "noble opportunity" to "strike back against injustice." We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steadman's mistrial motion following testimony regarding the victim's prior medical history. See State v Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 627-28 (2000) ("The granting or refusing of a motion for a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law."). The State did not elicit the testimony as a prior bad act, it was limited to a brief reference by a single witness, and the trial court immediately instructed the jury to disregard the testimony as not relevant to the case at hand. See State v. Kirby, 269 S.C. 25, 28, 236 S.E.2d 33, 34 (1977) ("The power of a court to declare a mistrial ought to be used with the greatest caution under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes."); State v. Stanley, 365 S.C. 24, 34, 615 S.E.2d 455, 460 (Ct. App. 2005) ("A mistrial should only be granted when 'absolutely necessary,' and a defendant must show both error and resulting prejudice in order to be entitled to a mistrial." (quoting Harris, 340 S.C. at 63, 530 S.E.2d at 628)).

2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Steadman's motion for a mistrial following the State's comments in its closing argument See State v Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 605, 683 S.E.2d 500, 509 (Ct App 2009) ("A trial court is allowed broad discretion in dealing with the range and propriety of closing argument to the jury") Initially, we find the State's closing argument was within its accepted purview to appeal to the jury's duty to return a just verdict See State v. Rice, 375 S.C. 302, 336, 652 S.E.2d 409, 426 (Ct App 2007) (holding a prosecutor's statement to the jury to give the victim's wife peace and the victim justice could be viewed as consistent with the prosecutor's duty not merely to convict the defendant, but "to see justice done"), overruled on other grounds by State v Byers 392 S.C. 438, 710 S.E.2d 55 (2011) Moreover, any impropriety in the State's remarks did not prejudice Steadman See State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 26-29, 538 S.E.2d 248, 251-53 (2000) (holding the trial court's instructions to the jury that it had "one single objective and that [was] to seek the truth" in the context of the court's instructions as a whole, which included full instructions regarding reasonable doubt, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights); State v. Daniels, 401 S.C. 251, 257, 260, 737 S.E.2d 473, 476-77 (2012) (Toal, CJ, concurring) (finding the trial...