State v. Woods
Supreme Court of South Carolina
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
- State v. KellySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1998
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2000
- State v. GulledgeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1982
- Thompson Ex Rel. Estate of Thompson v. O'RourkeSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1986
- State v. SavageCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.