State v. Gibbs, 20280

Decision Date08 September 1976
Docket NumberNo. 20280,20280
Citation267 S.C. 365,228 S.E.2d 104
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Daniel GIBBS, Appellant.

G. Dan Bowling, Charleston, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, and Asst. Attys. Gen. Joseph R. Barker and Richard P. Wilson, Columbia, and Sol. Robert B. Wallace, Charleston, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant and a codefendant were indicted for armed robbery. Appellant was subsequently separately tried and convicted receiving a sentence of twenty-one (21) years imprisonment. He asserts that the trial judge erred (1) in refusing to ask prospective jurors certain voir dire questions requested by appellant; (2) in admitting in evidence certain statements made by appellant following his arrest, (3) in allowing an in-court identification of appellant by the victim, (4) in refusing to grant a requested instruction that, if the jury 'find that his (appellant's) actions were caused by force or threats of force from another person, and were not a result of his own free will, 'he must be found not guilty; and (5) in his conduct during the course of the trial. We consider oral argument of the issues unnecessary and, since we find no error, the judgment is affirmed.

Appellant requested that the trial judge propound to the jurors twenty-one (21) questions. These were refused but the court made general inquiries to determine whether bias or prejudice existed and whether the jurors could give a fair and impartial trial. The first assertion of error concerns the refusal of the trial judge to propound the requested voir dire questions and, mainly, the refusal to ask the jurors about possible racial prejudice.

Appellant concedes the well settled principle that the nature and extent of any voir dire examination of the jury rests largely within the discretion of the trial judge.

There was no abuse of discretion in the refusal to inquire about racial prejudice. The fact that the appellant was black and the victim white was in no way involved in any issue in the trial and the trial judge properly refused to inject the question of racial prejudice through questions submitted by appellant. Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258.

The contention that error was committed in the admission into evidence of certain statements of appellant is also without merit. The State did not rely upon the statements of appellant but they were first brought out in direct examination of him by his counsel. If there was any prejudice to appellant, it resulted from his own action in first tendering the issue. He is therefore in no position to assert error.

Neither was there error in permitting the prosecuting witness to make an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Cason
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 5 de outubro de 1994
    ...circumstances, the requirement of "bias or prejudice" is met through a general voir dire as to bias and prejudice. See State v. Gibbs, 267 S.C. 365, 228 S.E.2d 104 (1976). A special circumstance exists when race is an integral part of the case. See Id. A special circumstance of constitution......
  • Crosby v. Southeast Zayre, Inc.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 de abril de 1980
    ...it has been held that, generally, the conduct of voir dire examinations of jurors is within the discretion of the court, State v. Gibbs, 267 S.C. 365, 228 S.E.2d 104, we have also held that, under the quoted statute, the refusal to make any examination of prospective jurors to determine bia......

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