State v. Gulledge, No. 21641
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol.; GREGORY; LEWIS |
| Citation | 277 S.C. 368,287 S.E.2d 488 |
| Docket Number | No. 21641 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1982 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Charles GULLEDGE, Appellant. |
Page 488
v.
Charles GULLEDGE, Appellant.
Page 489
[277 S.C. 369] John C. Lindsay, of Lindsay & Lindsay, Bennettsville, and Henry Hammer, of Hammer & Bernstein, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen., Daniel R. McLeod and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol., J. DuPre Miller, Chesterfield, for respondent.
GREGORY, Justice:
Appellant was indicted for assault and battery with intent to kill in the shooting of highway patrolman Frank Murphy when Murphy attempted to arrest him for speeding and driving under the influence. The jury found appellant guilty of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and the trial judge imposed a nine year sentence. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
During voir dire, at defense counsel's request, the trial judge asked if any potential jurors were related by blood or marriage to present or former police or law enforcement officers. Defense counsel conceded that relationship alone would not automatically disqualify a juror. Eight potential jurors responded affirmatively. The record does not reveal if any of those jurors were struck by the defense; however, the defense did not exercise all its peremptory strikes.
Near the end of trial, and out of the jury's presence, defense counsel called Chesterfield County Deputy Sheriff James [277 S.C. 370] Brock. Brock testified that juror Zudie Walters was married to his wife's half-brother. He further testified that he went to the crime scene, but took no part in the investigation. However, appellant had been placed in Brock's custody, and Brock was in the courtroom throughout the trial. Because juror Zudie Walters had not responded affirmatively on voir dire, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The court denied the motion. We find that under the facts of this case, the denial constituted reversible error.
It is fundamental that a defendant is entitled to a trial by an impartial jury. South Carolina Constitution, Article 1, Section 14; United States Constitution, Amendment VI. The trial judge has the duty to assure himself that every juror is unbiased, fair and impartial. State v. Britt, 237 S.C. 293, 117 S.E.2d 379 (1960); State v. Holland, 261 S.C. 488, 201 S.E.2d 118 (1973).
Solely because a juror is related by blood or marriage to a police officer or deputy sheriff does not automatically disqualify the juror under Section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kelly, No. 24809.
...been discharged by the Court, challenged for cause by counsel or stricken through the exercise of peremptory challenge. State v. Gulledge, 277 S.C. 368, 371, 287 S.E.2d 488, 490 (1982) (quoting Photostat Corp. v. Ball, 338 F.2d 783 (10th Cir.1964)); see also 47 Am.Jur.2d Jury §§ 195, 208-09......
-
State v. Jones, No. 22978
...appellant his fundamental right to a fair and impartial jury. Cf. State v. Hardee, 279 S.C. 409, 308 S.E.2d 521 (1983); State v. Gulledge, 277 S.C. 368, 287 S.E.2d 488 (1982). See also Haley v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., Inc., 802 F.2d 1532 (4th [298 S.C. 126] II. SOLICITOR'S ARGUMENT Second,......
-
The State v. Burgess, No. 4765.
...in which the supreme court stated: “The trial judge has the duty to assure himself that every juror is unbiased, fair and impartial.” 277 S.C. 368, 370, 287 S.E.2d 488, 489 (1982) (emphasis added). Moreover, after the juror in the case before us initially testified he could be fair and impa......
-
Long v. NORRIS & ASSOCIATES, LTD., No. 3243.
...A. Counsel's Right to Truthful Answers From Jurors During Voir Dire The leading case in South Carolina on this issue is State v. Gulledge, 277 S.C. 368, 287 S.E.2d 488 (1982). Gulledge Necessarily, it is expected and required that jurors in their answers shall be completely truthful and tha......
-
State v. Kelly, No. 24809.
...been discharged by the Court, challenged for cause by counsel or stricken through the exercise of peremptory challenge. State v. Gulledge, 277 S.C. 368, 371, 287 S.E.2d 488, 490 (1982) (quoting Photostat Corp. v. Ball, 338 F.2d 783 (10th Cir.1964)); see also 47 Am.Jur.2d Jury §§ 195, 208-09......
-
State v. Jones, No. 22978
...appellant his fundamental right to a fair and impartial jury. Cf. State v. Hardee, 279 S.C. 409, 308 S.E.2d 521 (1983); State v. Gulledge, 277 S.C. 368, 287 S.E.2d 488 (1982). See also Haley v. Blue Ridge Transfer Co., Inc., 802 F.2d 1532 (4th [298 S.C. 126] II. SOLICITOR'S ARGUMENT Second,......
-
The State v. Burgess, No. 4765.
...in which the supreme court stated: “The trial judge has the duty to assure himself that every juror is unbiased, fair and impartial.” 277 S.C. 368, 370, 287 S.E.2d 488, 489 (1982) (emphasis added). Moreover, after the juror in the case before us initially testified he could be fair and impa......
-
Long v. NORRIS & ASSOCIATES, LTD., No. 3243.
...A. Counsel's Right to Truthful Answers From Jurors During Voir Dire The leading case in South Carolina on this issue is State v. Gulledge, 277 S.C. 368, 287 S.E.2d 488 (1982). Gulledge Necessarily, it is expected and required that jurors in their answers shall be completely truthful and tha......