THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State,        Respondent,

v.

Lerone J. Rouse,        Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
Jackson V. Gregory, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 03-UP-151
Submitted December 9, 2003 – Filed February 20, 2003   


AFFIRMED


Katherine Carruth Link, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, of Columbia; Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston; for respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  Lerone J. Rouse appeals his convictions for first degree burglary, armed robbery, first degree criminal sexual conduct, and two counts of  kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence and his motion for mistrial. 

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issue IState v. Missouri, 337 S.C. 548, 554-55, 524 S.E.2d 394, 397-98 (1999) (AFranks addressed an act of commission in which false information had been included in the warrant affidavit.  However, the Franks test also applies to acts of omission in which exculpatory material is left out of the affidavit.  To be entitled to a Franks hearing for an alleged omission, the challenger must make a preliminary showing that the information in question was omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether it made, the affidavit misleading to the issuing judge.  There will be no Franks violation if the affidavit, including the omitted data, still contains sufficient information to establish probable cause. . . .  [T]he Fourth Amendment does not require an affiant to include all potentially exculpatory evidence in the affidavit.@); United States v. Williams, 730 F. Supp. 455 (D. D.C. 1990) (upholding search warrant based in part on detective=s affidavit that defendant Astrongly resembled@ composite drawing of wanted suspect); Issue IIState v. Harris, 340 S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) (AA mistrial should only be granted when absolutely necessary.  In order to receive a mistrial, the defendant must show error and resulting prejudice.@) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added); State v. Kelsey, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69, 331 S.C. 50, 73 (1998) (AThe decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.@). 

AFFIRMED

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur