State v. Green
| Decision Date | 03 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2017-001296,Opinion No. 5800 |
| Citation | 854 S.E.2d 626,432 S.C. 572 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Tappia Deangelo GREEN, Appellant. |
Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.
Tappia Deangelo Green appeals from his convictions for armed robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He asserts the trial court erred in (1) allowing irrelevant testimony of a detective concerning the victim's fear, causing the detective to give the victim's story credibility, (2) allowing evidence of his post-arrest silence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio ,1 and (3) not enforcing a grant of mistrial when a juror was unable to participate in deliberations due to a medical condition and asked to be relieved. We affirm.
Green was tried before a jury May 22-25, 2017. The State presented evidence that: Green and two other individuals—Jonathan Johnson and a third, unknown man—kidnapped Keith Lee under gunpoint as he waited for his girlfriend who had entered a bank; they robbed him of a small amount of cash and jewelry; they drove him to his place of employment to collect his pay check; they drove him to a check cashing business; and they released him after taking his money from his paycheck. The defense's position was that Lee owed Johnson money for drugs; he voluntarily rode with the men to cash his check and turned over the money; and Lee only reported it as a crime to avoid his girlfriend's anger over him using his paycheck for drugs.
During the trial, Detective Jennifer Butler testified she interviewed Lee's girlfriend, Karissa, who identified Johnson2 as a person she had seen while she was in the bank. Detective Butler transported Lee and Karissa home after their interviews. When asked about their emotional state during this time, she stated they both appeared "very shook'en up," they were very disturbed, they were concerned about retaliation, and they inquired about a special patrol request for their address. Detective Butler testified she detected "pretty genuine fear" and, in her experience as a detective, that was not common, and they appeared more shaken and concerned than average victims. The solicitor asked the detective if, based upon what she perceived as a very real fear, she believed their story. Defense counsel objected, stating, "He's asking her did she believe [their] story and I think that's irrelevant whether she believes it." The trial court allowed the testimony over the objection.
Green testified in his own defense, claiming Johnson stated Lee owed him money. He recounted how he, Johnson, Lee and a third person drove around smoking weed that day, indicating they went from the bank to Lee's place of employment and to a check cashing business. Green acknowledged that he was the person wearing all black as depicted on the camera at Lee's place of employment that day. Green disputed that Lee was forced or threatened to do anything by him or Johnson. Explaining how he touched the check or envelope belonging to Lee, Green stated that Lee and Johnson walked into a check cashing place and, after they came out and got in the car, Lee handed him a check or an envelope that he then gave to Johnson. Green testified Lee did appear upset at one point, though, commenting that his "gal" was going to "trip."
On cross-examination, the solicitor engaged in lengthy questioning of why Green had not told this story to the police and this was the first time anyone had heard it. Defense counsel eventually objected, asserting the solicitor was improperly commenting on Green's exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights. The trial court sustained the objection and, at the trial court's direction, the solicitor moved on to other questions. Subsequently, a concern was raised that the solicitor's line of questioning may have violated Doyle . After hearing arguments and listening to a proffer of evidence on the matter, the trial court determined the evidence indicated Green was not Mirandized3 and, therefore, the questioning was not violative of Doyle . However, no further questions were elicited, nor was any argument made, on the matter before the jury.
After the jury began deliberations, Juror 280 came before the court, apparently having asked to be relieved because of a menstrual problem. The trial court explained that they could quit early that day, but she would have to return in the morning. When asked if she wanted to go home early, she declined. She further declined the trial court's invitation to start a little later the following morning, explaining such would not matter. Juror 280 returned to the jury room, and the trial court stated, The trial court then stated, "I'm going to have to miss try [sic] the case." Defense counsel suggested they bring the jurors back the next week, but the trial court declined that suggestion and again stated, "I'm going to miss try [sic] the case" noting the juror was not participating, she stated it would be worse tomorrow, and she was not an effective juror. The defense declined to proceed with only eleven jurors, and the trial court stated, "Bring in the lady who's having the problem." However, before it could do so, the jury returned with a verdict.
After the trial court indicated it had been informed the jury had reached a verdict, it asked if the parties were ready to receive the verdict. Defense counsel replied that the defense was ready. When the jury returned to the courtroom, the trial court addressed the foreman, noted an issue had come up during deliberations, and asked if he felt "the jury has had an adequate opportunity to review the case and has issued its decision without duress." The foreman replied affirmatively. When asked if he thought it was a fair verdict in this matter, the foreman again replied affirmatively. The trial court then addressed Juror 280 and asked if she had been able to participate in this decision, if she felt it was a fair verdict on her part, and whether she had an opportunity to adequately consider the case. Juror 280 responded affirmatively to each question. The trial court had all the jurors confirm this was their verdict. The verdict was then published, with the jury finding Green guilty on all charges. When asked if the defense had any matters to consider before releasing the jury, defense counsel stated they had none.
1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing irrelevant testimony by Detective Butler that Lee was purportedly more fearful than the average victim, causing the detective to believe his story and give it credibility, when the case turned on credibility.
2. Whether the trial court erred by allowing evidence of Green's post-arrest silence in violation of Doyle , when the court determined the matter hinged on whether Green had been provided with Miranda warnings, then disregarded testimony Green had been read Miranda and refused to hear and consider body camera recordings from two officers on scene at Green's arrest given time considerations.
3. Whether the trial court erred in not enforcing its grant of a mistrial when Juror 280 was unable to participate in deliberations due to a medical condition and asked to be relieved, Green asked that the case be continued until the following week when the juror's medical problem would be resolved, Green refused to waive his right to twelve jurors, the court stated it was declaring a mistrial because Juror 280 could not effectively participate in deliberations, and then the jury returned with a verdict.
In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only and is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless those findings are clearly erroneous. State v. Wilson , 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001). "This same standard of review applies to preliminary factual findings in determining the admissibility of certain evidence in criminal cases." Id. at 6, 545 S.E.2d at 829. On review, this court is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. Accordingly, we do not re-evaluate the facts based upon our own view of the preponderance of the evidence. Id. Rather, we simply determine whether the trial court's ruling is supported by any evidence. Id.
"In general, rulings on the admissibility of evidence are within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion resulting in prejudice to the complaining party." State v. Halcomb , 382 S.C. 432, 443, 676 S.E.2d 149, 154 (Ct. App. 2009). "[T]his Court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous." Id. at 439, 676 S.E.2d at 152. "The appellate court reviews a trial judge's ruling on admissibility of evidence pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard and gives great deference to the trial court." State v. Torres , 390 S.C. 618, 625, 703 S.E.2d 226, 230 (2010).
The decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion amounting to an error of law. State v. Wiley , 387 S.C. 490, 495, 692 S.E.2d 560, 563 (Ct. App. 2010).
On appeal, Green argues the trial court erred in allowing Detective Butler's testimony that she found Lee credible due to his appearing more fearful than the average victims she had come into contact with because such was "irrelevant, as it invaded the province of the jury," thereby rendering it incompetent. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial