Gossett v. State

Decision Date22 January 1990
Docket NumberNo. 23143,23143
Citation300 S.C. 473,388 S.E.2d 804
PartiesMichael T. GOSSETT, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

Asst. Appellate Defender Stephen P. Williams, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka and Staff Atty. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

This case presents two issues for our decision: (1) whether the defendant was denied due process of law when the trial court refused the jury's request to view the scene of the crime; and (2) whether certain comments of the trial judge concerning the scene of the crime constitute reversible error.

FACTS

The defendant, Michael Gossett, was charged with the crime of assault and battery with intent to kill for the shooting of Troy Acker. Acker was working in his furniture upholstery shop, located in Spartanburg, South Carolina, on August 11, 1987. Acker testified as follows. At approximately 3:30 that afternoon, a young man entered his shop. No one else was present in the shop. The young man asked Acker if he re-upholstered cars, to which Acker replied in the negative. Acker told the man that he had a friend who did such work, and Acker proceeded to look up his friend's phone number. As Acker was doing this, he was shot at close range, the bullet entering his temple and exiting his mouth.

Instead of collapsing, Acker testified that he jumped up from his chair upon realizing he had been shot. The young man then fled the shop. Acker later positively identified Gossett as his assailant when he spotted Gossett while Gossett was waiting for a preliminary hearing. Acker testified that he recognized Gossett "readily" and identified him as the culprit before the police told him that Gossett was the man charged.

Three other witnesses testified for the State. Michael Gentry stated that he approached the police upon seeing them at the upholstery shop and that he informed them that he had seen Gossett on the street near the upholstery shop between 3:00 and 3:15. Joe Williams, who worked at a nearby automobile dealership, testified that he saw Gossett running out of the upholstery shop immediately after the gunshot was fired. Detective John Hall testified that Gossett made the statement "why would I shoot the old man for nothing?" before he had told Gossett the victim's age and before he had informed Gossett that nothing was stolen from the upholstery shop.

Gossett's defense was that he had been mistakenly identified as the culprit. His case pointed out several conflicts among the State's witnesses concerning what color clothes he was wearing. He also presented an alibi witness. Gossett himself contradicted Detective Hall's testimony, stating that he was asked "why would you want to rob that old man?", the question serving to notify him of Acker's age. 1

Gossett was found guilty after a January 19, 1988 trial, and did not file an appeal. Gossett next sought post-conviction relief, but was denied it. He then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari and review of his claims for post-conviction relief.

Among the grounds for relief argued, Gossett asserted that he had not been informed of his right to a direct appeal. The PCR judge found that Gossett had been so informed. The appropriate scope of review of this finding is that "any evidence" of probative value is sufficient to uphold the PCR judge's findings. Webb v. State, 281 S.C. 237, 314 S.E.2d 839 (1984).

At the PCR hearing, Gossett's trial attorney testified that he "thought" he had informed Gossett of his right to an appeal before the trial, and that he had no recollection of informing Gossett of his rights to an appeal after the trial. There is no evidence that trial counsel informed Gossett of the manner of and method for filing an appeal, nor is there evidence that counsel attempted to ascertain whether Gossett wished to file an appeal. We concluded that Gossett did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal. See Cherry v. State, 386 S.E.2d 624 (S.C.1989). We granted the petition for certiorari on this ground and directed the petitioner to brief his direct appeal issues for our review pursuant to White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974).

LAW/ANALYSIS
I. REFUSAL TO GRANT JURY REQUEST TO VIEW THE SCENE OF THE CRIME

At the end of the trial, when the jury was deliberating, they asked the trial judge in a note if they could view the scene of the crime. This request apparently stemmed from the jurors' belief that it would aid them in judging Joe Williams' testimony that, from his workplace vantage point, he saw the defendant flee. The trial judge responded as follows:

THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, I have the note you've sent me in regarding some distances, and a request to visit the sight. (sic) The distances--some of the distances as I recollect were offered into evidence. Of course, I couldn't--I'm not allowed to comment on them. But rather have to leave that to the recollection of you twelve. But the sight (sic) is--would be another piece of evidence. Neither the State nor the defense considered the sight (sic) important to offer it into evidence. Therefore, I'm not permitted to let you go out there.

(App. 148, 11. 21-25; App. 149, 11. 1-6). Gossett complains that the trial judge's refusal to honor the jury's request was error. We disagree.

The jury's viewing of the scene of the crime is governed by S.C.CODE ANN. § 14-7-1320 (Law. Co-op.1976). This statute reads:

The jury in any case may, at the request of either party, be taken...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Brace v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 17 June 2016
    ...e.g., Sumpter v. State, 312 S.C. 221, 439 S.E.2d 842 (1994); Sims v. State, 313 S.C. 420, 438 S.E.2d 253 (1993); Gossett v. State, 300 S.C. 473, 388 S.E.2d 804, 805-07 (1990); Davis v. State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986); White v. State, 263 S.C. 110, 208 S.E.2d 35 (1974). To seek a b......
  • State v. McHoney
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 19 March 2001
    ...declined the request, informing the jury they must decide the case based on the evidence presented. Similarly, in Gossett v. State, 300 S.C. 473, 388 S.E.2d 804 (1990), the jury sent a note to the trial judge asking if they could view the scene of the crime. We found the trial judge was cor......
  • Hicks v. Southcarolina
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 17 June 2016
    ...to an appeal. See, e.g., Sumpter v. State, 439 S.E.2d 842 (S.C. 1994); Sims v. State, 438 S.E.2d 253 (S.C. 1993); Gossett v. State, 388 S.E.2d 804, 805-07 (S.C. 1990); Davis v. State, 342 S.E.2d 60 (S.C. 1986); White v. State, 208 S.E.2d 35 (S.C. 1974). To seek a belated appeal, Petitioner ......
  • State v. Mouzon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 4 February 1997
    ...that such view is necessary to a just decision .... A viewing of the scene of the crime is not regarded as evidence. Gossett v. State, 300 S.C. 473, 388 S.E.2d 804 (1990). It is not a taking of testimony. State v. Plath, 281 S.C. 1, 313 S.E.2d 619, cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1265, In a criminal......
  • 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