State v. Gillian, No. 26342.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | Moore |
| Citation | 646 S.E.2d 872 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Steve GILLIAN, Petitioner. |
| Docket Number | No. 26342. |
| Decision Date | 11 June 2007 |
v.
Steve GILLIAN, Petitioner.
[646 S.E.2d 874]
Deputy Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for petitioner.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, of Columbia, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for respondent.
Justice MOORE.
Petitioner was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 602 S.E.2d 62 (Ct. App.2004). We now affirm as modified.
The body of the victim, Jason Ward, was found about 8:30 a.m. on January 28, 2001, behind the Boozer Shopping Center. Richland County police investigated Ward's death initially by tracing his activities in the days leading up to his death. The police determined Ward was with petitioner from approximately midnight on January 28 until his death.
Around midnight, petitioner, Jeremiah Page, and several friends, most of whom had been drinking, met at Michael Glenn's home. Shortly after arriving at Glenn's home, petitioner left and brought Ward back to the party. Subsequently, petitioner and Ward left the party and drove to the apartment of one of Ward's co-workers.
After petitioner and Ward left the party, Page acted violently and was forcefully removed from the house. Once he calmed down outside, Page asked if he could reenter the residence and use the phone to secure a ride home. Once inside, Page telephoned petitioner and informed him of the previous altercation. Petitioner and Ward returned to the party at the Glenn residence approximately ten minutes after petitioner spoke with Page.
Upon arriving at the Glenn residence, petitioner physically attacked at least four people, including breaking one person's nose by head-butting him. Petitioner demanded to see the two men who had thrown Page out of Glenn's house. He asked the men why they attacked Page and threatened to beat them up for attacking Page. After questioning them, petitioner turned his anger upon Page for misleading him. Petitioner beat Page, who was crying and trying to cover his face.
At this point, Ward, who had been sitting quietly at the kitchen table, confronted petitioner about his behavior. A guest at the party testified Ward stated: "Why are you messing with these kids, man? They are scared of you. They don't want to fight you." Petitioner then directed his anger toward Ward, who calmly refused to fight petitioner despite several minutes of attempted instigation and taunting. Ward eventually responded to petitioner's threats by quickly punching him a few times and pinning him to the floor. After petitioner agreed to calm down, Ward allowed him to stand up, but the threats continued.
Around 5:30 a.m., Ward agreed to leave the party with petitioner, despite another party guest warning Ward not to leave with petitioner. Before leaving, petitioner stated, "You will see this in the newspaper tomorrow."
Around 6:30 a.m., residents of an area close to the Boozer Shopping Center heard gunshots. Ward's body was later found behind the shopping center, with four bullet wounds to the head and one to the neck. The wounds were caused by .38 caliber copper-jacketed bullets. Markings on the recovered bullets were consistent with bullets fired from a .38 caliber handgun manufactured
by the Taurus Company, as well as seven other manufacturers. The murder weapon was never recovered.
Petitioner arrived at his parents' home around 8:30 a.m. on Sunday morning and entered his brother's bedroom. Petitioner confessed to his brother that he had shot Ward several times and that he did not feel remorse. He told his brother to watch the news because the murder would be on the news.
Around 9:00 a.m., petitioner walked over to his cousin's house. The cousin testified petitioner, who was drunk, told him he had gone to a party and beat up several people. Petitioner also told him he killed someone, explaining that he lured the victim behind the jewelry store he had once robbed under the guise of showing the victim how he broke into the store. He told his cousin he might see it in the newspaper.
Dems Jewelry Store, in the Boozer Shopping Center, reported a break-in and a resulting loss of 34 women's Tag Heuer watches in July of 2000. Steven Livingston, the owner and manager of the jewelry store, testified as to the details of the break-in. Page and petitioner's cousin stated that petitioner had previously told them that he had robbed a jewelry store and had taken several watches. Another witness, Dustin Johnson, testified that upon petitioner's directions he had pawned twelve Tag Heuer watches.
The weapon that killed Ward was never found. However, in investigating petitioner's connection to Ward's death, officers linked petitioner and five men to a residential burglary in Lexington County. All five of the men testified at trial as to the details of the burglary, and the testimonies of all five men were essentially in accordance with one another. The solicitor also presented testimony from Kevin Collins, the detective with the Lexington County Sheriff's Department who investigated the robbery, and from the resident, Ronnie Muller. The purpose of the testimony was to place the alleged murder weapon in the hands of petitioner around the time of the murder.
Testimony revealed petitioner planned the burglary which took place on January 26, 2001. Petitioner obtained a map of the inside of the home and copied keys that allowed entry to the home.1 Petitioner recruited the five men to actually enter the house for him. While the five men entered the home, petitioner waited at a nearby gas station. A five shot Taurus .38 caliber revolver was one of the items taken from the home.
The men met petitioner following the burglary. Petitioner was furious at the group's failure to steal any items of value. However, Page testified petitioner was enthusiastic about the theft of the gun, which he placed in his car, stating he intended to use it to "do some dirt." One participant, Jessie Boot, testified the gun was a black revolver with a brown handle. Another participant, David Grice, testified the gun was a brown-handled, black metal .38 that said Taurus on it. Petitioner, along with a few of the men, then returned to the home to steal additional items, some of which were taken to a wooded area near petitioner's parents' home. Several of the men testified they saw petitioner place the gun in a brown paper bag and place it inside his car.
The following day, petitioner contacted an associate in the music industry to purchase bullets for the gun, but the man refused. Thereafter, Dustin Johnson reluctantly agreed to purchase the bullets from a local Wal-Mart. Both Johnson and petitioner were identified on store security video purchasing the bullets on January 27.
Prior to the start of the trial, defense counsel moved to have evidence of the two burglaries excluded under Rules 403 and 404(b), SCRE, and under State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923). The trial judge ruled evidence of the burglaries was admissible. Before the residential burglary testimony began, the trial judge issued a limiting instruction to the jury that they could consider the evidence for intent and identity, but not as a comment on petitioner's character. At the close of the State's evidence, defense counsel's motion for a mistrial based on the prior bad act evidence regarding the residential burglary was denied.
I. Did the Court of Appeals err by upholding the trial court's decision to admit evidence of two prior burglaries committed by petitioner?
II. Did the Court of Appeals err by upholding the trial court's decision not to admit evidence of a police ruse designed to coerce petitioner into confessing?
Regarding both burglaries, the Court of Appeals held that evidence of the Dems jewelry store burglary and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Martucci, No. 4438.
...short period of time prior to his death circumstantially identified him as Child's killer. See State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 c. Common Scheme or Plan The evidence at issue established a pattern of continuous abuse or neglect necessary to prove homicide by child ab......
-
State v. Lyles, No. 4406.
...value, the determination must be based on the entire record and will turn on the facts of each case. State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876, (2007) (citing State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18, 30, 393 S.E.2d 364, 371 (1990)). To make this finding, trial judges are given wide discre......
-
State v. Simmons, No. 4569.
...must be based on the entire record, and the result will generally turn on the facts of each case. State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 A. Kershaw County Arrest and Stolen Rims Prior to the introduction of any testimony pertaining to the Kershaw County arrest, the circuit......
-
State v. Ostrowski, Appellate Case No. 2018-000423
...of whether the evidence is more or less prejudicial than evidence admitted in prior cases. See State v. Gillian , 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 (2007) ("The determination of the prejudicial effect of the evidence must be based on the entire record and the result will generally turn......
-
State v. Martucci, No. 4438.
...short period of time prior to his death circumstantially identified him as Child's killer. See State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 c. Common Scheme or Plan The evidence at issue established a pattern of continuous abuse or neglect necessary to prove homicide by child ab......
-
State v. Lyles, No. 4406.
...value, the determination must be based on the entire record and will turn on the facts of each case. State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876, (2007) (citing State v. Bell, 302 S.C. 18, 30, 393 S.E.2d 364, 371 (1990)). To make this finding, trial judges are given wide discre......
-
State v. Simmons, No. 4569.
...must be based on the entire record, and the result will generally turn on the facts of each case. State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 A. Kershaw County Arrest and Stolen Rims Prior to the introduction of any testimony pertaining to the Kershaw County arrest, the circuit......
-
State v. Ostrowski, Appellate Case No. 2018-000423
...of whether the evidence is more or less prejudicial than evidence admitted in prior cases. See State v. Gillian , 373 S.C. 601, 609, 646 S.E.2d 872, 876 (2007) ("The determination of the prejudicial effect of the evidence must be based on the entire record and the result will generally turn......