Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Woods

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided July 16, 2001No. 25318Published

1Dissent

BURNETT, Justice:

I respectfully dissent. While Juror B did not respond to two voir dire questions, the record does not support the majority’s conclusion that she intentionally concealed information from the parties. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals granting respondent a new trial. State v. Woods, 338 S.C. 561, 527 S.E.2d 128 (Ct.App. 2000).

During voir dire, the trial judge asked the following question (Question 1):

Now can you tell me are you friends or casual acquaintances with any of them [i.e., the attorneys involved in the trial] or business associates of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. KellySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
  2. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
  3. State v. GulledgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
  4. Thompson Ex Rel. Estate of Thompson v. O'RourkeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
  5. State v. SavageCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1991

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API