State v. Franklin, No. 23058

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtTOAL; GREGORY
Citation382 S.E.2d 911,299 S.C. 133
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Willie Edward FRANKLIN, Appellant. . Heard
Decision Date02 May 1989
Docket NumberNo. 23058

Page 911

382 S.E.2d 911
299 S.C. 133
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Willie Edward FRANKLIN, Appellant.
No. 23058.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard May 2, 1989.
Decided Aug. 14, 1989.

Page 912

[299 S.C. 134] Deputy Chief Atty. Elizabeth C. Fullwood, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia; and Sol. Robert J. Harte, Aiken, for respondent.

TOAL, Justice:

On July 13, 1987, Leroy Moore, the night auditor of the Holiday Inn in Aiken, was murdered by strangulation and the hotel cash register and a money box were stolen. Willie E. Franklin and three other men, Rodney Franklin, Keith [299 S.C. 135] Odom and James Washington, were involved in the commission of the crime.

Willie E. Franklin was convicted of murder, grand larceny and second degree burglary. On appeal, he challenges the admissibility of incriminating statements made to police officers and the jury charge on the principles of accomplice liability.

1. Incriminating Statements

Franklin contends that the trial court erred in admitting two inculpatory statements. We disagree.

A. July 15 Statement

On July 15, 1987, Willie Franklin was arrested pursuant to a warrant. He was taken to the office of Wayne Huff, a criminal investigator with the Aiken County Sheriff's Department, for questioning. Investigator Derrick was also present. Huff advised Franklin that he was under arrest for the charge of murder and that Huff was investigating the homicide at the Holiday Inn. Franklin responded, "I ain't did nothing." Huff stated that he wanted to give Franklin his rights, to which Franklin responded, "What do I need rights for?" Huff said that it appeared that the man was beaten to death. Franklin said, "I ain't beat nobody. All I did was hold him while Rodney hit him." Huff told Franklin that he wanted to give him his rights and that he should not say anything else. Franklin stated, "I don't have anything else to say. I want to see an attorney." All interrogation was ceased and Franklin was taken to the county jail.

Following a suppression hearing, the trial judge ruled that these statements were admissible as spontaneous utterances. Franklin contends that the statements fell within the scope of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and, therefore, should have been excluded.

Under Miranda, "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the [299 S.C. 136] privilege against self-incrimination." 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. at 1612. In discussing confessions and voluntary statements, the Supreme Court noted that:

C]onfessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influence is, of course, admissible in evidence. The fundamental import of the privilege while an individual is in custody is not whether he is allowed to talk to the police without the benefit of warnings and counsel, but whether he can be interrogated.... Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.

384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1630. [Emphasis added.

In Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980), the Supreme Court defined "interrogation" and held that:

The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected

Page 913

to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term "interrogation" under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect.

446 U.S. at 300, 100 S.Ct. at 1689.

The State contends that the conversation that took place between Huff and Franklin did not constitute "interrogation" or its "functional equivalent." Reading or attempting to read the Miranda rights form would be communication normally incident to arrest. We conclude that the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence and that the trial court properly determined that the statements made by Franklin when he interrupted Huff were voluntary and that Huff's responses were not of such nature that he should have known that they would elicit an incriminating response. Therefore, we hold that the July 15 statement was properly admitted.

[299 S.C. 137] B. July 20 Statement

On July 20, 1987, Franklin asked to speak to Huff again. According to Franklin, he wanted to make a telephone call to find out the condition of his girlfriend. She was expecting a baby and he had received information from his brother that she was in the hospital. His request to make a phone call had been denied and he thought Huff would allow him to make the call.

Franklin, Huff and Investigator Derrick went to Huff's office for the interview. Franklin was read the Miranda warnings, indicated that he understood them and signed a waiver of rights.

Franklin first made a statement which was not recorded. He then gave a statement which was tape recorded and later transcribed. The recorded statement indicated that Franklin killed Moore. Huff testified that both statements were consistent. Franklin contends that in the first statement, he denied any knowledge of what happened to Moore and that after this statement was made, Huff told Franklin that he could make...

To continue reading

Request your trial
41 practice notes
  • State v. Kirton, No. 4470.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 17, 2008
    ...333 S.C. 426, 510 S.E.2d 714 (1998) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 382 S.E.2d 911 (1989)). The Miranda decision is meant to preserve the privilege against self-incrimination during interrogation of a suspe......
  • State v. Von Dohlen, No. 24437
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 19, 1995
    ...695 the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 382 S.E.2d 911 (1989). The question is whether the defendant's will was overborne when he confessed. Schneckloth, supra. The burden is on th......
  • State v. Miller, No. 4307.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 19, 2007
    ...experience and conduct of the accused.'" State v. Ledford, 351 S.C. 83, 87, 567 S.E.2d 904, 906 (Ct.App.2002) (quoting State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 138, 382 S.E.2d 911, 914 (1989)); accord State v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 475, 385 652 S.E.2d 452 S.E.2d 839, 842 (1989); State v. Corns, 310......
  • State v. Easler, No. 2512
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 2, 1996
    ...elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); See also State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 382 S.E.2d 911 Miranda warnings are inapplicable to volunteered statements which are not the product of interrogation. State v. Howard, 296......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
41 cases
  • State v. Kirton, No. 4470.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • December 17, 2008
    ...333 S.C. 426, 510 S.E.2d 714 (1998) (citing Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 382 S.E.2d 911 (1989)). The Miranda decision is meant to preserve the privilege against self-incrimination during interrogation of a suspe......
  • State v. Von Dohlen, No. 24437
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 19, 1995
    ...695 the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 382 S.E.2d 911 (1989). The question is whether the defendant's will was overborne when he confessed. Schneckloth, supra. The burden is on th......
  • State v. Miller, No. 4307.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 19, 2007
    ...experience and conduct of the accused.'" State v. Ledford, 351 S.C. 83, 87, 567 S.E.2d 904, 906 (Ct.App.2002) (quoting State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 138, 382 S.E.2d 911, 914 (1989)); accord State v. Childs, 299 S.C. 471, 475, 385 652 S.E.2d 452 S.E.2d 839, 842 (1989); State v. Corns, 310......
  • State v. Easler, No. 2512
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 2, 1996
    ...elicit an incriminating response. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); See also State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 382 S.E.2d 911 Miranda warnings are inapplicable to volunteered statements which are not the product of interrogation. State v. Howard, 296......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT