State v. Cash, No. 19329
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOSS; Alonzo Cash and Marvin McNeil, the appellants herein, and William Creel were indicted and tried before the Honorable James B. Morrison |
| Citation | 185 S.E.2d 525,257 S.C. 249 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Alonzo CASH and Marvin McNeil, Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 19329 |
Page 525
v.
Alonzo CASH and Marvin McNeil, Appellants.
[257 S.C. 250] Joseph M. Thompson, Jr., Charleston Heights, and Barry Krell, Charleston, for appellants.
Sol. Robert B. Wallace, Charleston, for respondent.
MOSS, Chief Justice:
The record shows that on July 16, 1969, the GEX Liquor Store located in the Union Heights Section of Charleston [257 S.C. 251] County was robbed by three unmasked Negro males, at approximately 1:45 p.m., each of whom was armed with a pistol and more than $1,000 was taken from the cash register.
Alonzo Cash and Marvin McNeil, the appellants herein, and William Creel were indicted and tried before the Honorable James B. Morrison, presiding judge, and a jury, at the 1969 September Term of the Court of General Sessions for Charleston County for such armed robbery.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty as to the appellants and a verdict of not guilty as to William Creel. From the rulings of the trial judge, this appeal is prosecuted.
The evidence in behalf of The State consisted of eye-witness identification by two employees of the liquor store where
Page 526
the offense occurred. The defense was alibi. Each of the appellants and Creel testified that he was elsewhere at the time of the offense and presented witnesses to support their alibi.It is undisputed that at the time of the robbery there was present in the liquor store F. W. Ohlandt, Jr., the owner thereof, and Joseph Leppard, an employee of the store. It appears that eight days after the robbery the police carried a set of seven photographs to the store which had been robbed. This set of photographs contained pictures of Cash and Creel. Ohlandt and Leppard separately identified Cash as one of the participants in the robbery. On the following day, another series of twelve photographs was submitted to Ohlandt and Leppard and each separately identified McNeil as a participant in the robbery.
As a result of the photograph identification, Cash was arrested and on July 25, 1969, a line-up was held at the police station. Creel was present in the line-up which was made up of six colored males of approximately the same size and age, all being dressed alike in prison uniforms. Prior to the aforesaid line-up, Cash was asked by the police if he had an attorney and if he wanted one present at the line-up. Cash [257 S.C. 252] named as his attorney a member of the Charleston Bar. He was given an opportunity to call this attorney on the telephone but was unable to reach him and he so advised the police. Cash did not advise the police that he was represented by his present counsel. Cash agreed to stand in the line-up.
It further appears that the police had previously been instructed, as a set procedure, to call an assistant county attorney to be present at any line-up if the suspects did not have an attorney. If a county attorney was not available the police obtained the services of any other attorney who could be contacted. Prior to the holding of the line-up, the officers attempted to contact two assistant county attorneys, neither of whom was available and so a practicing attorney of the Charleston Bar, who prior to becoming an attorney was a police officer, was called to be present at the line-up to represent Cash and Creel. At the line-up, Ohlandt identified Cash and Creel as two of the participants in the robbery of the liquor store.
Thereafter, the appellant McNeil was arrested and placed in a line-up at the police station made up of colored males of approximately the same size and age, all being dressed alike in prison uniforms. McNeil advised the police that he did not want an attorney and would voluntarily appear in the line-up. However, in accordance with their established procedure, an assistant county attorney was contacted and was present at the line-up. The witness Ohlandt identified McNeil as a participant in the robbery of the liquor store. Leppard did not attend either line-up.
When the State offered testimony to identify the appellants as participants in the robbery, they objected on the ground that their pretrial line-up identification by the prosecuting witness deprived them of rights guaranteed to them under the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that an out-of-court identification of an accused at a police line-up is a critical stage at [257 S.C. 253] which the accused has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178. The appellants contend that they were denied their constitutional rights to counsel at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carlson, No. 3948.
...as being tainted by a previous, illegal identification or confrontation. Ramsey at 613, 550 S.E.2d at 297 (citing State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971)); State v. Cheatham, 349 S.C. 101, 561 S.E.2d 618 (Ct.App.2002). The purpose of the in camera hearing is to determine whether ......
-
McGee v. Warden of Lieber Corr. Inst., C. A. 5:21-2777-RMG-KDW
...supra; State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80, 417 S.E.2d 92 (1992); State v. Williams, 258 S.C. 482, 189 S.E.2d 299 (1972); State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971); State v. Cheatham, 349 S.C. 101, 117, 561 S.E.2d 618, 627 (Ct. App. 2002); State v. Smith, 336 S.C. 39, 518 S.E.2d 294 (Ct.......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 3600.
...v. Williams, 258 S.C. 482, 485, 189 S.E.2d 299, 300 (1972); State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80, 82-83, 417 S.E.2d 92, 93 (1992); State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249,185 S.E.2d 525 (1971)); see also State v. Ramsey, 345 S.C. 607, 613, 550 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2001) (stating the general rule that a trial cour......
-
State v. Cheatham, No. 3453.
...Our courts have repeatedly addressed a defendant's right to have evidentiary hearings outside the presence of the jury. In State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971), the defendant was charged with burglary and objected to testimony regarding the identification of him as the perpetr......
-
State v. Carlson, No. 3948.
...as being tainted by a previous, illegal identification or confrontation. Ramsey at 613, 550 S.E.2d at 297 (citing State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971)); State v. Cheatham, 349 S.C. 101, 561 S.E.2d 618 (Ct.App.2002). The purpose of the in camera hearing is to determine whether ......
-
McGee v. Warden of Lieber Corr. Inst., C. A. 5:21-2777-RMG-KDW
...supra; State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80, 417 S.E.2d 92 (1992); State v. Williams, 258 S.C. 482, 189 S.E.2d 299 (1972); State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971); State v. Cheatham, 349 S.C. 101, 117, 561 S.E.2d 618, 627 (Ct. App. 2002); State v. Smith, 336 S.C. 39, 518 S.E.2d 294 (Ct.......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 3600.
...v. Williams, 258 S.C. 482, 485, 189 S.E.2d 299, 300 (1972); State v. Simmons, 308 S.C. 80, 82-83, 417 S.E.2d 92, 93 (1992); State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249,185 S.E.2d 525 (1971)); see also State v. Ramsey, 345 S.C. 607, 613, 550 S.E.2d 294, 297 (2001) (stating the general rule that a trial cour......
-
State v. Cheatham, No. 3453.
...Our courts have repeatedly addressed a defendant's right to have evidentiary hearings outside the presence of the jury. In State v. Cash, 257 S.C. 249, 185 S.E.2d 525 (1971), the defendant was charged with burglary and objected to testimony regarding the identification of him as the perpetr......