Bradley v. State, No. 24145
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | FINNEY; CHANDLER, Acting C.J., TOAL and MOORE, JJ., and BRUCE LITTLEJOHN |
| Citation | 316 S.C. 255,449 S.E.2d 492 |
| Parties | Marvin BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 24145 |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1993 |
Page 492
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
Decided Sept. 19, 1994.
Page 493
[316 S.C. 256] Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., James Patrick Hudson and Asst. Atty. Gen., Delbert H. Singleton, Columbia, for respondent.
FINNEY, Justice:
We granted petitioner's belated direct appeal pursuant to State v. White, 305 S.C. 455, 409 S.E.2d 397 (1991) to review his armed robbery conviction. We affirm.
Bradley and four accomplices robbed a Charleston store while holding the owner and another person at gunpoint. Later that night, Bradley and the others drove to Baltimore, Maryland. The following night, while gathered in a "no loitering zone," the group was approached by Baltimore police officers [316 S.C. 257] and were detained and searched. Bradley was arrested and charged with various crimes. The Baltimore police gave him the Miranda 1 warnings.
While incarcerated in Baltimore, Bradley contacted Sergeant Ronald Sowers of the Charleston County Police Department. 2 Sergeant Sowers discussed the Charleston robbery with Bradley during this and other phone conversations. Bradley gave details of the robbery and named his accomplices. Sowers did not give Bradley the Miranda warnings during any of the phone conversations. Prior to introducing the evidence at Bradley's South Carolina robbery trial, a Jackson v. Denno 3 hearing was held to determine the admissibility of the statements. The trial judge admitted the statements ruling that Bradley was not in South Carolina's custody and the statements were freely and voluntarily given without coercion, undue influence or promise.
Petitioner asserts that the trial judge erred in ruling that Sowers did not have to give Bradley Miranda warnings during the telephone conversations. We disagree.
Miranda warnings are required for official interrogations only when a suspect "has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." Miranda v. Arizona, supra. While Miranda may apply to one who is in custody on an unrelated offense, see Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), the mere fact that one is incarcerated does not render an interrogation custodial, Cervantes v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindsey v. U.S., No. 99-CF-1295.
...addressed this issue have followed that reasoning." (quoting Cervantes, supra, 589 F.2d at 428) (citations omitted)); Bradley v. State, 316 S.C. 255, 449 S.E.2d 492, 493 (1994) ("While Miranda may apply to one who is in custody on an unrelated offense, the mere fact that one is incarcerated......
-
State v. Easler, No. 24655
...relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood himself to be in custody. Bradley v. State, 316 S.C. 255, 449 S.E.2d 492 (1994). The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the inter......
-
State v. Halverson, Appeal No. 2018AP858-CR
...Pasdon v. City of Peabody , 417 F.3d 225, 227-28 (1st Cir. 2005) ; People v. J.D. , 989 P.2d 762, 771-72 (Colo. 1999) ; Bradley v State , 316 S.C. 255, 449 S.E.2d 492, 494 (1994) ; Commonwealth v. Smallwood , 379 Mass. 878, 401 N.E.2d 802, 806 (1980) ; State v. Denton , 58 Wash.App. 251, 79......
-
State v. Sprouse, No. 2592
...have understood himself to be in custody. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Bradley v. State, 316 S.C. 255, 257, 449 S.E.2d 492, 493-94 The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the......
-
Lindsey v. U.S., No. 99-CF-1295.
...addressed this issue have followed that reasoning." (quoting Cervantes, supra, 589 F.2d at 428) (citations omitted)); Bradley v. State, 316 S.C. 255, 449 S.E.2d 492, 493 (1994) ("While Miranda may apply to one who is in custody on an unrelated offense, the mere fact that one is incarcerated......
-
State v. Halverson, Appeal No. 2018AP858-CR
...Pasdon v. City of Peabody , 417 F.3d 225, 227-28 (1st Cir. 2005) ; People v. J.D. , 989 P.2d 762, 771-72 (Colo. 1999) ; Bradley v State , 316 S.C. 255, 449 S.E.2d 492, 494 (1994) ; Commonwealth v. Smallwood , 379 Mass. 878, 401 N.E.2d 802, 806 (1980) ; State v. Denton , 58 Wash.App. 251, 79......
-
State v. Easler, 24655
...relevant inquiry is whether a reasonable man in the suspect's position would have understood himself to be in custody. Bradley v. State, 316 S.C. 255, 449 S.E.2d 492 (1994). The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the inter......
-
State v. Sprouse, 2592
...have understood himself to be in custody. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Bradley v. State, 316 S.C. 255, 257, 449 S.E.2d 492, 493-94 The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the......