State v. Burton, No. 25745.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 589 S.E.2d 6,356 S.C. 259 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 25745. |
| Parties | The STATE, Petitioner, v. Kenneth Andrew BURTON, Respondent. |
356 S.C. 259
589 S.E.2d 6
v.
Kenneth Andrew BURTON, Respondent
No. 25745.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard September 25, 2003.
Decided November 3, 2003.
Rehearing Denied December 4, 2003.
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Justice PLEICONES:
This Court granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision in State v. Burton, 349 S.C. 430, 562 S.E.2d 668 (Ct.App.2002),1 and further directed the parties to brief whether pointing and presenting a firearm is a lesser included offense of assault with intent to kill. We vacate Burton's conviction of pointing and presenting a firearm because it is not a lesser included offense of assault with intent to kill. Also, we reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict on Burton's charges due to a search and seizure violation. That issue was not properly preserved for review.
I. Is pointing and presenting a firearm a lesser included offense of assault with intent to kill so that the circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to try or convict Burton of that offense?
II. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the trial judge erred in failing to direct verdicts because of a Fourth Amendment violation?
FACTS
In March 1998, the Chief of Police for Laurens County asked six officers to serve outstanding warrants. Officer Tracey Burke explained that the officers printed out a sheet of the names of people with outstanding warrants, and said, "if we run into somebody we don't know, and we ask, then we'll get their name and we'll look through this piece of paper ... so we'll know we have active warrants on these persons."
The officers went to the Green Street Mini-mart where several people were loitering in the parking lot. Burton was standing at a pay phone, with the receiver in his left hand, and his right hand in his coat pocket. Officer Burke 2 asked Burton if he could see Burton's ID, but "[Burton] wouldn't acknowledge nothing [Burke] told him at first." When Burton did not respond, the other officers came over to the pay phone. Officer Burke asked Burton, again, for some identification, but Burton "never said a word." The officers asked Burton to remove his hand from his coat pocket, but Burton still did not respond, and did not remove his hand.
Officer Burke testified that because Burton would not acknowledge the officer's questions, and would not remove his hand from his pocket, "a lot of things went through [Officer Burke's] mind. It could have been maybe a beer or anything, but my worse interpretation was it might have been a weapon. So, after him not acknowledging us or even saying anything, I was positioned behind [Burton]. I reached my hand around behind him to see what was inside of his coat, because at that point I'd done got worried." Officer Burke reached his hand
Burton was indicted for two counts of assault while resisting arrest, and two counts of assault with intent to kill. Burton represented himself at trial. The trial judge granted a directed verdict as to assault with intent to kill Officer Deal, which stemmed from Burton spitting on Deal's shoe. Burton was found guilty of resisting arrest as a lesser included offense of assault while resisting arrest; pointing and presenting a firearm as a lesser included offense of assault with intent to kill Officer Burke; and assault while resisting arrest. Burton was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for assault while resisting arrest to run concurrently with his federal sentence,4 and two one-year concurrent sentences for resisting arrest and pointing and presenting a firearm.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Officer Burke did not have the right to search Burton's pocket for weapons, and therefore the search was improper. The Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Northcutt, No. 26271.
...offense if the offense has traditionally been considered a lesser included offense of the greater offense charged. State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 264, 589 S.E.2d 6, 8 (2003) (citing State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372, 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)). There is no historical antecedent suggesting homicide ......
-
Cole v. U.S. Attorney Gen., No. 11–15557.
...as having three distinct elements: “(1) pointing or presenting; (2) a loaded or unloaded firearm; (3) at another.” State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6, 8 (2003). Thus, on first viewing, it seems possible that this offense fails to meet Leocal's mens rea requirement. However, South C......
-
United States v. Drummond, No. 18-4197
...officer’s boot" (citing State v. Burton , 349 S.C. 430, 562 S.E.2d 668 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002), vacated on other grounds, State v. Burton , 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2003) )). Thus, the "conviction by the jury for the ABWO offense, plus the Supreme Court of South Carolina’s reinstatement ......
-
United States v. Jones, No. 18-6070
...because of a Fourth Amendment violation, see id. at 674, the state supreme court reinstated Burton’s conviction, see State v. Burton , 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2003). Although neither court directly addressed the issue of whether the defendant had been properly charged and convicted u......
-
State v. Northcutt, No. 26271.
...offense if the offense has traditionally been considered a lesser included offense of the greater offense charged. State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 264, 589 S.E.2d 6, 8 (2003) (citing State v. Watson, 349 S.C. 372, 563 S.E.2d 336 (2002)). There is no historical antecedent suggesting homicide ......
-
Cole v. U.S. Attorney Gen., No. 11–15557.
...as having three distinct elements: “(1) pointing or presenting; (2) a loaded or unloaded firearm; (3) at another.” State v. Burton, 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6, 8 (2003). Thus, on first viewing, it seems possible that this offense fails to meet Leocal's mens rea requirement. However, South C......
-
United States v. Drummond, No. 18-4197
...officer’s boot" (citing State v. Burton , 349 S.C. 430, 562 S.E.2d 668 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002), vacated on other grounds, State v. Burton , 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2003) )). Thus, the "conviction by the jury for the ABWO offense, plus the Supreme Court of South Carolina’s reinstatement ......
-
United States v. Jones, No. 18-6070
...because of a Fourth Amendment violation, see id. at 674, the state supreme court reinstated Burton’s conviction, see State v. Burton , 356 S.C. 259, 589 S.E.2d 6, 9 (2003). Although neither court directly addressed the issue of whether the defendant had been properly charged and convicted u......