Mincey v. State, 24075
| Decision Date | 02 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 24075,24075 |
| Citation | 314 S.C. 355,444 S.E.2d 510 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elijah MINCEY, Petitioner, v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent. . Heard |
Chief Atty. Daniel T. Stacey, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Joseph D. Shine, and Asst. Atty. Gen. Delbert H. Singleton, Jr., Columbia, for respondent.
We granted certiorari to review the denial of Elijah Mincey's (Mincey's), application for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR).
We reverse.
Mincey was indicted for distribution of crack cocaine, conspiracy, and distribution within proximity of a school.
At trial, an undercover agent, Officer James Rouse, testified that he and an informant, Charles Ann Chapman, went to Linwood Street in Batesburg to make a drug buy. They drove up to a group of three or four men, one of whom approached the car. Rouse told the man he wanted to buy some crack, at which point the man returned to his friends. Mincey then approached the car and, after telling Rouse and Chapman that they "didn't have anything," walked back to the group. At trial, Rouse testified that he then observed Mincey hand a rock of crack cocaine to an individual named Walter "Scoop Dog" Williams, who approached the car and sold Rouse the crack for $20.
In Mincey's defense Walter "Scoop Dog" Williams, who had pled guilty to distribution and distribution in proximity of a school, testified that he had sold the crack to Rouse and that he had not obtained the crack from Mincey. Scoop Dog testified further that he had refused the Solicitor's "deal" to testify against Mincey because he, not Mincey, was the one who sold the crack. He denied that Mincey had in any way threatened him.
The testimony of a second witness, Chris Young, supported Scoop Dog's version of events. Young pled guilty to conspiracy.
In closing argument, the Solicitor stated:
So, both of the defense witnesses [Scoop Dog and Young] that have gotten up here have pled guilty to being in on it with Elijah. I would say to you that what I feel is happening, look at 'Scoop Dog' over there. They didn't get him to stand up when they were going through the case. Elijah stands up, he's a pretty intimidating man. 'Scoop Dog' has been in jail with him since this thing happened. They've been in the same cell. They have the same run of the jail. 'Scoop Dog' has been right there next to him the whole time.
I would have to submit to you that Elijah must be a pretty awesome individual down in Batesburg. He must be pretty intimidating for these guys would come before Judge Connor, tell her, yes, we're guilty of this. They had all the same options of a trial. But yes, we're guilty of this and we did this with Elijah but now, they have got to sit right here in this chair and look over at that man that stood up a minute ago and said well, I kind of--no, maybe I didn't do it. You know, I'm not sure what the deal was. [Emphasis added].
Regarding the informant, Chapman, the Solicitor stated:
I would say as far as her, I think, she was nervous about the whole situation. Maybe she's intimidated by Elijah. She's got children. She lives down there, too. [Emphasis added].
Was counsel ineffective in failing to object to Solicitor's closing argument comments?
Circuit Court held that Solicitor's closing argument was proper. We disagree.
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that his attorney's performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced thereby. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Thrift v. State, 302 S.C. 535, 397...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Orr, 72257
...886 P.2d 811 (1994) (quoting State v. Baker, 249 Kan. 431, 446, 819 P.2d 1173 [1991] ). The defendant relies upon Mincey v. State, 314 S.C. 355, 358, 444 S.E.2d 510 (1994), wherein the Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the failure of the defendant's trial counsel to object to prejud......
-
State v. Barroso
...the evidence was improper, since there was nothing to connect the alleged threats with any of the defendants. See Mincey v. State, 314 S.C. 355, 444 S.E.2d 510 (1994) ("It would be a 'prostitution of justice' to permit evidence that someone attempted to influence a witness by fear or fright......
-
State v. Edwards
...the defendant with it, and upon failure to do so to have ruled it out. Id. at 352, 80 S.E. at 621. Similarly, in Mincey v. State, 314 S.C. 355, 358, 444 S.E.2d 510, 511 (1994), the court concluded it was error to allow closing argument about threats or dangers to witnesses unless there was ......
-
Jordan v. State
...to influence a witness by fear or fright without any evidence that connects the defendant with the tampering." Mincey v. State, 314 S.C. 355, 444 S.E.2d 510, 511 (1994) (citations omitted). The error in Mincey —where the prosecutor alleged threats against witnesses without proving them—was ......