State v. Collins

• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: HUFF, J.
• Citation: State v. Collins, 435 S.C. 31, 864 S.E.2d 914 (S.C. App. 2021)
• Decision Date: 08 September 2021
• Docket Number: Appellate Case No. 2018-002056,Opinion No. 5861
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Randy COLLINS, Appellant.

435 S.C. 31

864 S.E.2d 914

The STATE, Respondent,

v.Randy COLLINS, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-002056

Opinion No. 5861

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard May 4, 2021

Filed September 8, 2021

Rehearing Denied September 29, 2021

E. Brandon Gaskins, of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, of Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, both for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway, all for Respondent.

HUFF, J.:

Appellant, Randy Collins, appeals from his first-degree arson and conspiracy convictions, asserting the trial court erred in (1) ruling his confession was voluntarily given and (2) refusing to require further evaluation of him for competency to stand trial. Because we find the trial court erred in finding his confession was voluntarily given, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case involves the tragic death of a twelve-year-old boy (Child) as a result of an intentionally set fire. The State's theory of the case was that Child's mother, Marissa Cohen, obtained an insurance policy on the contents of a rented mobile home, she offered Appellant $5,000 to burn the mobile home, and Appellant enlisted the help of his nephew, James Miller (Miller), to carry out the plan. The vast majority of the crucial evidence admitted against Appellant was the challenged recorded statement he gave to law enforcement.

In the early morning hours of March 29, 2014, Andrews Fire Department and Georgetown County Fire EMS personnel responded to a mobile home fire in Andrews, South Carolina, after receiving a call around 1:15 a.m. Although they received information the home was vacant, once the fire was extinguished and the firefighters forced entry into the locked home, they discovered Child was dead inside the structure. The State produced evidence that Cohen obtained a $25,000 property insurance policy on the contents of the mobile home on February 20, 2014. On March 24, 2014, Cohen rented a storage unit and, shortly before the fire at the mobile home, she moved furniture and household appliances from the mobile home to the storage unit. One of the men who had earlier helped Cohen move her household items, Benjamin "Mano" Brown (Mano), testified that after he helped her move, Cohen told him she intended to burn the home. A couple of days before the fire Cohen moved with her children into the home of Frank Washington at Arbor Place Apartments. On the day of the fire, Cohen purchased $20 worth of kerosene from a convenience store in Andrews. On the night of the fire, Cohen's older son, Devon, and her younger child were at the Arbor Place apartment with Cohen but Child was not there, having gone to a birthday party at a recreation center around 8:30 p.m. on March 28, 2014. When Child and his friend left the party around 12:00 or 12:30 a.m., Child asked his friend if he could spend the night with him. Child said he was going to check on his mother and retrieve some clothes. The friend understood Child was going to the mobile home that they had moved out of earlier in the week. Child never returned.

Investigators quickly determined the fire had been intentionally set with the use of an accelerant poured on the floor of the home. Testing subsequently revealed the presence of heavy petroleum distillate—common in kerosene—in the home. SLED Agent Scott Hardee, an arson investigator, assisted Georgetown County Investigator Melvyn Garrett in the investigation of this case. Based on an anonymous tip, Agent Hardee discovered the insurance policy that had been taken out by Cohen, and Investigator Garrett discovered Cohen purchased kerosene the day before the fire. This tip also indicated Appellant and Mano were involved. Investigator Garrett testified he spoke with Mano, who stated he was not there and did not know anything about the incident, which the investigator stated he was able to confirm. Investigator Garrett then spoke with Appellant on April 9, at which time Appellant told him he did not have anything to do with the fire and that he was at a club with his nephew, Miller, from 9:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. that night. The investigator also talked to Miller, who gave a statement likewise claiming he was with Appellant at a club from 9:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. on the night of the fire. Thereafter, Andrews Police Officer Oliver Nesmith served warrants on Appellant, obtaining his two cell phones. Agent Hardee noted phone records showed Cohen's and Appellant's phones had made contact with each other three times on March 28th, 2014—at 12:11 p.m., 3:27 p.m., and 9:07 p.m.—and three more times on March 29, 2014—at 2:50 a.m., 3:01 a.m., and 3:24 a.m.

On June 4, 2014, when Appellant arrived at Town Hall to retrieve his phones from Officer Nesmith,¹ Agent Hardee and Investigator Garrett used the opportunity to obtain an interview from Appellant. The officers read Appellant his rights and obtained a signed waiver of rights form from him at 10:20 a.m.² Agent Hardee then set up his personal camcorder to record the interview. Agent Hardee testified Appellant initially denied any involvement in the fire and denied he had any contact with Cohen, but when confronted, he changed his story and admitted contact with her. Agent Hardee testified Appellant ultimately told them that Cohen asked him to burn down her trailer and she would pay him $5,000; he went with Miller to the location; and he put all the blame on Miller as far as starting the fire but admitted he was there. The officers thereafter obtained arrest warrants for Appellant,³ Cohen, and Miller.⁴

Like Agent Hardee, Investigator Garrett testified Appellant initially maintained that he was not involved with the fire but, as they confronted him with inconsistencies, he changed his story. According to Investigator Garrett, Appellant stated that Cohen offered him $5,000 to burn down the trailer, he told Miller about the offer, and he put himself at the crime scene when the fire started. Subject to Appellant's Jackson v. Denno⁵ objection, the solicitor played Appellant's redacted interview for the jury.

Numerous individuals testified concerning Cohen's strange behavior and lack of concern regarding Child's death. Additionally, the State presented evidence concerning Cohen's nefarious intentions regarding Appellant and Mano after the fire. In particular, one of Cohen's cousin's testified Cohen told her she needed her to "help [her] get rid of Mano because [he was] the only one [who could] get [her] locked up." The State also presented evidence of a letter Cohen sent to her son, Devon, dated November 11, 2014. In the letter, Cohen wrote, "I heard [Appellant] has a bond. I wish that I had some backup and [Appellant] did have a bond just to deal with him.... I need a gun and meet up with [Appellant] and Mano."

The jury found Appellant guilty of arson in the first degree and criminal conspiracy. The trial court sentenced Appellant to thirty years’ imprisonment on the arson charge and gave him a concurrent five-year sentence on the conspiracy charge.

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err in ruling Appellant's confession was voluntarily given?

2. Did the trial court err in refusing to require further evaluation of Appellant for his competency to stand trial based on indications that he suffered from intellectual disabilities?

LAW/ANALYSIS

I. Voluntariness of Statement

A. Jackson v. Denno Hearing and the Recorded Statement

Prior to the trial, the court conducted a hearing on the voluntariness of Appellant's statements to law enforcement. Investigator Garrett, Agent Hardee, and Appellant testified during this hearing, and the recording of the Appellant's interview was played at this time.

In regard to Appellant's recorded statement, Investigator Garrett testified that after the officers executed a search warrant on Appellant's phones, they utilized Andrews Police Officer Nesmith—who Appellant was familiar with and possibly related to—to facilitate this matter by having Officer Nesmith return Appellant's phones in his and Agent Hardee's presence at Town Hall. When Appellant arrived, Investigator Garrett and Agent Hardee asked him to speak with them about the incident. Appellant agreed and they went into a conference room at Town Hall. Agent Hardee went over Appellant's Miranda⁶ rights, having Appellant initial beside each right, and Appellant signed the waiver of rights form at 10:20 a.m. on June 4, 2014. The conference room was not set up for recording purposes, but Agent Hardee had a video camera he was able to set up in the room. Investigator Garrett testified they were there approximately three hours, and during that time Appellant had a soda with him and was allowed to use the bathroom and smoke cigarettes a few times. He stated that at no time did they put any handcuffs or restraints on Appellant, at no time was he told he could not leave, they did not make any threats to get Appellant to talk, they took adequate breaks when Appellant requested them, and he had a phone with him that he could use if he desired.

When asked if there were any promises made to Appellant to get him to talk, Investigator Garrett acknowledged that he told Appellant "that no matter what he told [him] ... he was going to go home that particular day." Asked if they gave any hopes of assistance in the prosecution of the case, the officer replied, "Well, certainly, if he gave any information that led to the case being solved, then we would certainly ask for leniency of any type if we could," but there were no promises of leniency made. The State thereafter played the recorded interview. Concerning the part of the interview that was not recorded, Investigator Garrett stated that was not done with any purposeful intent, and no threats, coercions or promises were made during that time. He also stated he "kept [his] end of [the] bargain" concerning his...