State v. Gill, No. 20972
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GREGORY; LEWIS |
| Citation | 255 S.E.2d 455,273 S.C. 190 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Eric Andre GILL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 20972 |
Page 455
v.
Eric Andre GILL, Appellant.
Page 456
[273 S.C. 191] William M. Brice, Jr., York; and James F. Wells, Rock Hill, for appellant.
Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen., Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia; and Sol., William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.
GREGORY, Justice.
Appellant Eric Andre Gill was convicted of murder, armed robbery, and grand larceny of a vehicle and was sentenced to death for murder, twenty-five (25) years imprisonment for armed robbery, and ten (10) years imprisonment for grand larceny of a vehicle. We reverse.
First, appellant contends the trial judge erred by instructing the jury during the course of the trial as follows:
. . . I believe I told you and have told you on each occasion you left the courtroom, that you are not to discuss the case even among yourselves unless you are in the jury room, now you can discuss it in there, but don't discuss it at the motel or any place else, among yourselves even and of course it is illegal for anyone else to try to talk to you about the case. It is improper for you to discuss it, but it is not illegal, so I am just going to ask you not to do the improper thing, but you can discuss it all you wish to in the jury room but don't attempt to reach a decision until I tell you to begin your final deliberations, but please do not discuss the case among yourselves while you are at any place other than the jury room.
Counsel for appellant promptly objected to the instruction.
[273 S.C. 192] The challenged instruction advised the jury that it was proper to begin their deliberations before the close of the case. This was error. The trial judge should have instructed the jury to begin their deliberations only after all the evidence had been introduced, the arguments of counsel had been completed, and the applicable law had been charged.
Recently in State v. McGuire, S.C., 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979) we quoted with approval the following precautionary instruction taken from State v. Drake, 31 N.C.App. 187, 229 S.E.2d 51 (1976):
"And lastly, the only proper place for a jury to deliberate upon any criminal case
Page 457
is in the Jury Room at the end of the whole case, that is, after the evidence is all presented, the lawyers have had their opportunity to make their final summations or arguments to you and the Court has had its opportunity to charge you on the...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Filson, Case No. 2:97-cv-00927-JCM-PAL
...the jury's presence. (State v. Lewis (Fla. 1981) 398 So.2d 432; State v. Moore (Tenn. 1981) 614 S.W.2d 348; State v. Gill (S.C. 1979) 255 S.E.2d 455) . . . .ECF No. 191-3, p. 18 (footnote omitted.). He also references the 1986 California Public Defender Death Penalty Defense Manual and quot......
-
Holland v. State, No. 90-DP-0024
...to them constitutes reversible error." Id. at 1148 (citing numerous cases from various jurisdictions); see, e.g., State v. Gill, 273 S.C. 190, 255 S.E.2d 455, 457 (1979) (an oft-cited, capital-murder case which the South Carolina Supreme Court Page 874 reversed because jurors prematurely co......
-
State v. Aldret, No. 24876.
...707 (1986); State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979); State v. Gill, 273 S.C. 190, 192, 255 S.E.2d 455, 457 (1979). The rationale for prohibiting premature jury deliberations was set forth in McGuire, supra, in which we [A] ......
-
State v. Washington
...People v. Monroe, 85 Mich.App. 110, 270 N.W.2d 655 (1978); People v. Hunter, 370 Mich. 262, 121 N.W.2d 442 (1963); State v. Gill, S.C., 255 S.E.2d 455 (1979); State v. McGuire, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Benjamin, 369 Mass. 770, 343 N.E.2d 402 (1976); but see Meggs v. Fair, 621 F.2d 46......
-
Hogan v. Filson, Case No. 2:97-cv-00927-JCM-PAL
...the jury's presence. (State v. Lewis (Fla. 1981) 398 So.2d 432; State v. Moore (Tenn. 1981) 614 S.W.2d 348; State v. Gill (S.C. 1979) 255 S.E.2d 455) . . . .ECF No. 191-3, p. 18 (footnote omitted.). He also references the 1986 California Public Defender Death Penalty Defense Manual and quot......
-
Holland v. State, No. 90-DP-0024
...to them constitutes reversible error." Id. at 1148 (citing numerous cases from various jurisdictions); see, e.g., State v. Gill, 273 S.C. 190, 255 S.E.2d 455, 457 (1979) (an oft-cited, capital-murder case which the South Carolina Supreme Court Page 874 reversed because jurors prematurely co......
-
State v. Aldret, No. 24876.
...707 (1986); State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979); State v. Gill, 273 S.C. 190, 192, 255 S.E.2d 455, 457 (1979). The rationale for prohibiting premature jury deliberations was set forth in McGuire, supra, in which we [A] ......
-
State v. Washington
...People v. Monroe, 85 Mich.App. 110, 270 N.W.2d 655 (1978); People v. Hunter, 370 Mich. 262, 121 N.W.2d 442 (1963); State v. Gill, S.C., 255 S.E.2d 455 (1979); State v. McGuire, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Benjamin, 369 Mass. 770, 343 N.E.2d 402 (1976); but see Meggs v. Fair, 621 F.2d 46......