Constitutional – Jury Polling – Reversible Error Per Se

A trial court’s refusal to individually poll jurors upon request constitutes reversible error per se, as individual juror polling serves as a critical procedural safeguard protecting a defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict. Denial of the polling right inherently undermines confidence in the jury’s unanimity.

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed reversal of two murder convictions.

The consolidated appeal involved defendants, who were convicted by a jury of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Following the return of the verdicts, defense counsel requested individual polling of the jurors, a request the State itself supported. The trial court nevertheless denied the request, apparently based on concerns regarding juror safety, though the exact basis for the ruling was not fully developed in the record. On appeal, the defendants argued that South Carolina precedent required individual juror polling upon request and that denial required automatic reversal. The court of appeals agreed and reversed the convictions, prompting the State’s petition for further review.

The Supreme Court relied heavily on its earlier decision in State v. Wright, which established that the failure to individually poll jurors when requested is reversible error. The court explained that jury polling is not merely a procedural formality but serves as a defendant’s most meaningful opportunity to ensure that each juror freely, personally, and unequivocally agrees with the verdict returned in open court. The practice guards against the possibility that a juror may have been pressured, coerced, or improperly influenced during deliberations and allows courts to confirm the integrity of the unanimity requirement.

The State conceded the trial court erred but urged the court to modify Wright and subject polling errors to harmless-error analysis. The Supreme Court rejected that position, reasoning that denial of individual polling cannot be meaningfully evaluated for harmlessness because courts cannot determine after the fact whether a juror silently disagreed with the announced verdict. The court reiterated that an individual poll represents the best opportunity to ensure unanimity and preserve confidence in the verdict’s validity.

The court further noted that concerns regarding juror safety did not justify eliminating the procedure altogether. Although trial courts retain discretion regarding the manner in which polling is conducted, they lack discretion to refuse individual polling when a proper request has been made. Because the trial court denied the defendants a procedural protection directly tied to their constitutional right to a unanimous verdict, the court affirmed the reversal of the convictions and reaffirmed that such errors remain reversible per se.

Affirmed.

The State v. Carmichael (Lawyers Weekly No. 010-017-26, 3 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Florence County Circuit Court (D. Craig Brown, J.) Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General W. Joseph Maye, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements III, of Florence, all for Petitioner. Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Respondent Quinterris Javon Carmichael; and Appellate Defender Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for Respondent Tirik J. Johnson-Epps. South Carolina Supreme Court