Note to judge - rule in my favor and the case will not come back on appeal
When the trial judge gives you what you want, it makes it difficult to win on appeal. In State v. Parris, decided March 17, the S.C. Court of Appeals affirmed Parris' conviction for reckless homicide. Parris was acquitted of felony driving under the influence, but was convicted for reckless homicide and pled guilty to driving under suspension and habitual traffic offender. He was sentenced to 15 years (10 for the homicide and 5 consecutive for the habitual traffic offender).
Parris' trial lawyer objected to testimony by the arresting officer that Parris could take the stand and answer a question himself, as an inappropriate comment on Parris' right to remain silent. The trial judge sustained the objection and gave a curative instruction. Parris argued on appeal that the curative instruction was insufficient, but the Court holds that the issue is not preserved for appeal because Parris did not contemporaneously object to the sufficiency of the curative instruction.
When the arresting officer and a doctor each made statements on the stand that implied that Parris had a prior record (the trial judge had ruled before the trial began that the prior record would not be admissible), the judge sustained the defense lawyer's objections and struck the testimony from the record. No reversible error, because the trial judge ruled in Parris' favor and gave him what he asked for.
When the arresting officer implied that Parris had no remorse for the crime, the trial judge again sustained the objection, ruling that the officer could not comment on Parris' lack of remorse. The Court holds that there was no reversible error because again the trial judge gave Parris what he asked for. Although the officer could not comment on Parris' lack of remorse, he can testify as to Parris' lack of emotion as evidence of intoxication (fine line between the two, and a way for the prosecutor to get lack of remorse in through the backdoor).
