Butler v. State

Decision Date20 June 1990
Citation302 S.C. 466,397 S.E.2d 87
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesHorace BUTLER, Petitioner, v. The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
ORDER

Petitioner, a death row inmate, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. After careful consideration of the important issues raised by his petition, and in light of the unique circumstances involved in this matter, we grant the writ.

Petitioner's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Butler, 277 S.C. 452, 290 S.E.2d 1 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 932, 103 S.Ct. 242, 74 L.Ed.2d 191 (1983). Three years later we affirmed the denial of petitioner's request for post-conviction relief. Butler v. State, 286 S.C. 441, 334 S.E.2d 813 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1094, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 908 (1986). Petitioner has now exhausted his federal reviews.

Three and one-half years after petitioner's direct appeal was affirmed, and approximately one and a half months after the decision in Butler v. State, this Court issued its opinion in State v. Gunter, 286 S.C. 556, 335 S.E.2d 542 (1985). In Gunter we held the trial judge violated the defendant's fifth amendment rights by coercing him to take the witness stand in his defense. We deplored the judge's warning that even though he would charge the jury they could not consider the defendant's failure to testify, the jury would most likely ignore this instruction.

Subsequently, two capital cases raising this issue came before us. In State v. Pierce, 289 S.C. 430, 346 S.E.2d 707 (1986), and State v. Cooper, 291 S.C. 332, 353 S.E.2d 441 (1986), the same trial judge made similar comments to each defendant. Both defendants had chosen not to testify, and neither was swayed by the judge's comments. The State argued, therefore, that any error was harmless since the defendants were not prejudiced. We rejected the suggestion that these types of comments could ever constitute harmless error, noting, "The comments by the judge were erroneous, improper and contrary to South Carolina law." State v. Pierce, 289 S.C. at 434, 346 S.E.2d at 710.

Petitioner's request for habeas corpus is based on the fact that at his trial, this same trial judge committed this identical error. If anything, the error here was more egregious since it was subsequently determined that petitioner is mentally retarded. 1 A review of the colloquy in light of this fact (unknown to the trial judge at the time) raises serious questions whether petitioner even understood the proceedings. Cf., State v. Arthur, 296 S.C. 495, 374 S.E.2d 291 (1988) (valid waiver not established by mentally retarded defendant's bare assent to leading questions).

"The great and central office of the writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of a prisoner's current detention." Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335, 88 S.Ct. 962, 19 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1968). Here, petitioner seeks to take advantage of constitutional principles recognized after his trial, appeal, and exhaustion of state post-conviction relief proceedings. We caution that not every intervening decision, nor every constitutional error at trial will...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Moore v. Stirling
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 6, 2022
    ...in the setting , constitute[ ] a denial of fundamental fairness shocking to the universal sense of justice." Butler v. State , 302 S.C. 466, 468, 397 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1990) (citation omitted); accord Ozmint , 380 S.C. at 477, 671 S.E.2d at 602 ; McWee v. State , 357 S.C. 403, 406, 593 S.E.2d ......
  • In re Chapman
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 15, 2017
    ...of law or fact that will require a hearing, or if their application for relief is denied).10 See generally Butler v. State, 302 S.C. 466, 468, 397 S.E.2d 87, 88 (1990) (stating a court will normally only issue a habeas writ under limited circumstances, when there has been a violation that c......
  • Robertson v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 14, 2016
    ...cases where this Court permitted a successive application. Finally, the dissent claims a petition brought pursuant to Butler v. State, 302 S.C. 466, 397 S.E.2d 87 (1990) is adequate to address Petitioner's challenge. While the dissent may believe a Butler petition is the "ultimate safety ne......
  • Drayton v. Evatt
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1993
    ...has exhausted his opportunities for review on direct appeal and post-conviction relief is completely without a remedy. See Butler v. State, 302 S.C. 466, 397 S.E.2d 87, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 972, 111 S.Ct. 442, 112 L.Ed.2d 425 (1990) (writ of habeas corpus issued under circumstances where ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT