State v. Buckmon, No. 25375.
Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Citation | 555 S.E.2d 402,347 S.C. 316 |
Docket Number | No. 25375. |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Michael Paul BUCKMON, Appellant. |
Decision Date | 13 November 2001 |
347 S.C. 316
555 S.E.2d 402
v.
Michael Paul BUCKMON, Appellant
No. 25375.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard September 27, 2001.
Decided November 13, 2001.
Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, and Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Justice MOORE.
Appellant appeals his convictions for murder, attempted armed robbery, and criminal conspiracy. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
One December night, around 10:00 p.m., the unresponsive body of Minh Chapman (the victim) was found. The victim's body was found in the driver's seat of her car, which was parked outside the China Express Restaurant where she was manager. The victim's purse, containing approximately $1,400 of the restaurant's receipts, was beside her on the front car seat. After the police and rescue squad arrived, the victim was transported to the hospital. Initially, because there was no evidence of violence at the scene, she was thought to have suffered a heart attack. Later it was determined she had died from a single gunshot wound to the chest.
At trial, the fingerprint expert testified he was unable to positively identify anyone in this case.1 No fingerprints were discovered on a spent shell casing found near the car. Further, no fingerprints were found on a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol the police recovered from the home of the mother of Maurice Benning, one of appellant's co-defendants. The firearms examiner testified the fired shell casing found at the scene came from the pistol that was recovered. However, the examiner could not conclusively determine whether the .25 caliber bullet recovered from the victim's body had been fired by the recovered pistol.
A witness, Shirley Collins, testified she saw three people, sometime between 9:55 p.m. and 10:05 p.m., crossing the road in front of her while driving on the night of the murder. She testified the three people, whose race and sex she could not identify, were wearing dark clothes and were traveling in the direction of the China Express.
Temetrius Williams testified she drove appellant, Tunzy Sanders, and Benning around on the night of the murder. She drove them to a parking lot near the China Express to drop them off, but since it was raining they decided not to stay. She then drove the three to Jermaine Walker's house. She could not remember what they were wearing.2
Maurice Odom, who was imprisoned at the time, testified solely for the purpose of impeaching Temetrius. He testified he informed the police Temetrius had told him appellant had placed a gun to her head the night of the victim's murder and that all three men were wearing black clothes.
Jermaine Walker testified Temetrius dropped appellant, Sanders, and Benning off at his house. He stated the three had on "regular like blue jeans and shirts, dark clothes." Walker testified they stayed until about 9:30 or 10:00 p.m. While there, they stated they were going to "get a lick," which he took to mean there was going to be a burglary or a robbery. He could not remember who made that comment. When they left, Walker testified, they stated they were going to a friend's house and they walked in the direction of the China Express, which is the same direction in which the friend lived. Walker further stated that appellant also lived in that same direction.
A cellmate of Benning testified he and Benning discussed the China Express crime.3 He testified Benning told him the following: (1) there were two pistols, (2) he was "out to get paid that night," (3) he was the look-out, (4) he said take her out if necessary, (5) he ran after the victim was shot, (6) he kept his mother's gun but threw the other gun away, (7) a few other places had been "cased" that night but without luck.4
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Sims, No. 4371.
...means an object that is neither criminal nor unlawful." State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 133-134, 437 S.E.2d 75, 80 (1993); State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 323, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001); Pinion ex rel. Montague v. Pinion, 363 S.C. 564, 566, 611 S.E.2d 271, 272 (Ct.App.2005); State v. Crocker,......
-
State v. Moore, No. 4247.
...accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Walker, 349 S.C. 49, 562 S.E.2d 313 (2002); State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 555 S.E.2d 402 (2001); State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 411, 578 S.E.2d 32, 35 (Ct.App.2003); see also State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 533 S.E.......
-
United States v. Garcia-Santana, No. 12–10471.
...; R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–1–6 ; Rhode Island v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190, 197 (R.I.2005) ; S.C.Code Ann. § 16–17–410 ; South Carolina v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001) ; Va.Code Ann. § 18.2–22 ; Gray v. Virginia, 260 Va. 675, 537 S.E.2d 862, 865 (2000).5 The precise language of th......
-
United States v. Garcia-Santana, No. 12–10471.
...R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–1–6; Rhode Island v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190, 197 (R.I.2005); S.C.Code Ann. § 16–17–410; South Carolina v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2–22; Gray v. Virginia, 260 Va. 675, 537 S.E.2d 862, 865 (2000). 5. The precise language of the Cod......
-
State v. Sims, No. 4371.
...means an object that is neither criminal nor unlawful." State v. Gunn, 313 S.C. 124, 133-134, 437 S.E.2d 75, 80 (1993); State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 323, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001); Pinion ex rel. Montague v. Pinion, 363 S.C. 564, 566, 611 S.E.2d 271, 272 (Ct.App.2005); State v. Crocker,......
-
State v. Moore, No. 4247.
...accused or from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Walker, 349 S.C. 49, 562 S.E.2d 313 (2002); State v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 555 S.E.2d 402 (2001); State v. Al-Amin, 353 S.C. 405, 411, 578 S.E.2d 32, 35 (Ct.App.2003); see also State v. Martin, 340 S.C. 597, 533 S.E.......
-
United States v. Garcia-Santana, No. 12–10471.
...; R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–1–6 ; Rhode Island v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190, 197 (R.I.2005) ; S.C.Code Ann. § 16–17–410 ; South Carolina v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001) ; Va.Code Ann. § 18.2–22 ; Gray v. Virginia, 260 Va. 675, 537 S.E.2d 862, 865 (2000).5 The precise language of th......
-
United States v. Garcia-Santana, No. 12–10471.
...R.I. Gen. Laws § 11–1–6; Rhode Island v. Disla, 874 A.2d 190, 197 (R.I.2005); S.C.Code Ann. § 16–17–410; South Carolina v. Buckmon, 347 S.C. 316, 555 S.E.2d 402, 405 (2001); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2–22; Gray v. Virginia, 260 Va. 675, 537 S.E.2d 862, 865 (2000). 5. The precise language of the Cod......