State v. Baccus

• Decision Date: 09 January 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26094.,26094.
• Citation: 625 S.E.2d 216
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. John Roosevelt BACCUS, Appellant.

625 S.E.2d 216

The STATE, Respondent, v.John Roosevelt BACCUS, Appellant.

No. 26094.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard November 30, 2005.

Decided January 9, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of the South Carolina Office of Appellant Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney GeneralHenry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney GeneralJohn W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney GeneralDonald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney GeneralDerrick K. McFarland, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

Justice BURNETT:

John Roosevelt Baccus(Appellant) was convicted of murder and burglary in the first degree in connection with the shooting death of Brenda Kay Godbolt(victim), his former girlfriend.Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole on the murder charge and life imprisonment for the burglary charge, to be served concurrently.We certified his appeal from the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.We affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 14, 1999, the victim and her four-year old son were at her residence in Marion County.Victim and her friend, Priscilla Ham, talked at length during two telephone conversations.During the second conversation the victim began screaming.Ham testified the victim screamed, "John was here."Ham further testified she heard Appellant say, "I'm gonna kill your ass."She then heard a pop and clicking sound.Ham reported the incident to 911.

At trial, Dr. Erin Presnell, an expert in forensic pathology, testified the victim received two gunshot wounds to her body, one on her left cheek and one on her neck.Death resulted from the gunshot wound to the cheek.

At a pretrial suppression hearing and at trial, Officer Von Turbeville testified he arrived on the scene in the early morning hours of November 15, 1999, where he met with other officers and called Ham.Ham relayed to Turbeville her phone conversation with the victim and what she had overheard.Ham told him the victim said Appellant was coming through the window.She also gave him Appellant's name, his address in Florence County, and the type of car he had been driving.Turbeville relayed this information to Officer Barry Prosser of the Florence County Sheriff's Department.

Prosser testified at trial and at the suppression hearing that he went to Appellant's residence, where he knocked on the door but received no response.Prosser observed a car parked at a convenience store about one-fourth of a mile from Appellant's house that matched the description of the car Appellant had been driving.He noticed a "red substance" on the car and inside it.He also observed a smoldering burn pile containing clothing and shoes in Appellant's back yard.He testified he knocked on the door again and Appellant answered.Prosser advised Appellanthe was investigating an incident in Marion County, and Appellant was arrested.

At the pretrial suppression hearing, Turbeville testified he gave Officer Amber McDaniel of the Florence County Sheriff's Department information to obtain a search warrant for Appellant's residence.At a subsequent pretrial suppression hearing, McDaniel testified Turbeville told her about a homicide in Marion County; that Prosser had arrested Appellant, a suspect, in Florence County; that there was a burn pile with clothing outside Appellant's residence and that a vehicle Appellant was allegedly driving appeared to have blood stains in it.

McDaniel completed an affidavit for a search warrant with the information Turbeville supplied.She testified she did not know any particulars regarding the homicide at the time she requested a search warrant; specifically, she did not know why Appellant was a suspect.Additionally, she told the magistrate she had received a phone call from Turbeville regarding a homicide and Appellant had been arrested.She did not remember telling the magistrate anything not contained in the affidavit for the search warrant.Upon executing the search warrant, clothing, shoes, and a key to a vehicle were seized from Appellant's residence.

Prior to trial, the State petitioned the circuit court and the court issued an order directing Appellant to provide a blood sample for testing and comparison purposes.Blood was drawn from Appellant pursuant to the order.

The State presented the testimony of Michelle Dixon, who was qualified as an expert in latent prints, blood spatter, and crime scene reconstruction.During her initial walk-through of the victim's house, Dixon testified she found the victim in the rear bedroom where a window had been broken.She observed bloody footwear impressions from the bedroom to the side door of the residence.She testified during the process of entering the window the suspect was cut.She also testified fingerprints found in the window sill matched Appellant's fingerprints.

John Black testified as an expert in crime scene analysis, fingerprints, blood, and footwear impressions.He testified the shoes seized from Appellant's house matched the bloody shoeprints in the victim's house.

Dr. Steve Lambert testified at trial as an expert in DNA and serological analysis.Lambert testified he compared Appellant's blood, drawn pursuant to a court order, with evidence found in the victim's home.Lambert testified DNA testing and blood comparison revealed Appellant's blood matched blood found on the kitchen door, a bed sheet, and a blind in the bedroom where the victim was found.He also testified that on the night of Appellant's arrest a blood swab was taken from a cut on Appellant's left palm.The blood from that swabbing also matched the blood on the door, sheet, and blind.

During the suppression hearing and again during trial, Appellant moved to suppress evidence on the following grounds: (1) any evidence obtained by the State as a result of Appellant's warrantless arrest because the arresting officer lacked probable cause; (2) any evidence obtained by the search warrant because the affidavit accompanying the search warrant lacked probable cause; and (3) blood evidence drawn pursuant to a court order and implicating Appellant in the crime because the bodily intrusion was an unlawful search and seizure.The trial judge denied the motions.

ISSUES

I.Did the trial court err in admitting evidence emanating from Appellant's arrest because the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest him?

II.Did the trial court err in admitting evidence seized from Appellant's residence because the police affidavit which accompanied the search warrant did not support a finding of probable cause?

III.Did the trial court err in refusing to suppress blood evidence implicating Appellant in the crimes which was obtained in violation of his constitutional and statutory rights?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only.State v. Wilson,345 S.C. 1, 5, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829(2001).This Court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.State v. Quattlebaum,338 S.C. 441, 452, 527 S.E.2d 105, 111(2000).The trial judge's factual findings on whether evidence should be suppressed due to a Fourth Amendment violation are reviewed for clear error.State v. Brockman,339 S.C. 57, 66, 528 S.E.2d 661, 665-66(2000)(a private search is a question of fact and the trial court's ruling will be reversed only if there is clear error).

LAW/ANALYSIS

I.Arrest

Appellant argues the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence seized emanating from his arrest.Appellant contends his arrest was illegal because officers arrested him without a warrant and without probable cause.Appellant argues his fingerprints and blood, which were taken at the jail after his allegedly illegal arrest, should be suppressed as the fruit of the poisonous tree.SeeWong Sun v. United States,371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441(1963).We disagree.

The fundamental question in determining the lawfulness of an arrest is whether probable cause existed to make the arrest.Probable cause for a warrantless arrest exists when the circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed by the person being arrested.State v. George,323 S.C. 496, 509, 476 S.E.2d 903, 911(1996)(finding probable cause for warrantless arrest for murder).Whether probable cause exists depends upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding the information at the officer's disposal.Id.;see alsoBeck v. Ohio,379 U.S. 89, 91, 85 S.Ct. 223, 225, 13 L.Ed.2d 142(1964)(a court must consider "whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it—whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [Appellant] had committed . . . an offense.").

We conclude Prosser had probable cause to make the warrantless arrest based on the information he received from Turbeville and his own observations at Appellant's residence.Turbeville testified he relayed to Prosser information he received from Ham.Prosser testified Turbeville informed him of a homicide and information related to that homicide.He knew Appellant was a suspect in the homicide.He also observed a red substance on the inside and outside of a car matching the description of the car Appellant had been driving.He saw a burn pile containing shoes and clothing in Appellant's backyard.The trial judge properly admitted evidence emanating from Appellant's warrantless arrest.

II.Search Warrant

Appellant argues the trial court erred by refusing to suppress evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant.Appellant contends the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, and the shoes,...