State v. Gunter, 22379
| Decision Date | 03 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 22379,22379 |
| Citation | 335 S.E.2d 542,286 S.C. 556 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jimmy Lee GUNTER, Appellant. . Heard |
Asst. Appellate Defender Tara D. Shurling of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Amie L. Clifford, and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
The appellant, Jimmy Lee Gunter, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and received a thirty year sentence. He appeals alleging that the trial judge coerced him into testifying at trial, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits compelled self- incrimination. In addition, the appellant alleges error in the introduction of certain statements and the refusal of the court to allow the introduction of psychiatric testimony concerning the voluntariness of his confession. We reverse.
During trial, at the request of the appellant's attorney and out of the presence of the jury, the trial judge questioned Mr. Gunter as to whether or not he wished to take the stand in his own defense. Mr. Gunter now contends that this conversation amounted to official coercion and induced him to testify in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
The pertinent portion of the dialogue between the trial judge and the appellant is as follows:
The Court: Do you understand that you have the right to testify in this trial if you want to?
Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.
The Court: You understand that you do not have to testify if you don't want to?
Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.
The Court: Either way, it would be basically your decision, do you understand that?
Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.
The Court: There is some benefits either way you go, and there are oftentimes severe detriments, that is, it's going to work against you either way you go. Do you understand that?
Mr. Gunter: Yes.
The Court: If you do not testify, you know that that jury is going to hold it against you. You know that, don't you? (Emphasis added)
Mr. Gunter: If I don't testify?
Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in part that: "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ..." It is well settled that this provision governs state as well as federal criminal proceedings. Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 (1964). Article I, Section 12, of the South Carolina Constitution contains similar language. The Fifth Amendment does not prevent a defendant from making a voluntary choice to testify, but it prohibits compelled testimony. In order for testimony to be considered compelled, some degree of official coercion is necessary. This court has recognized that, "absent some officially coerced self-accusation, the Fifth Amendment privilege is not violated ..." State v. Gilbert, 273 S.C. 690, 696, 258 S.E.2d 890, 893 (1979), quoting United States v. Washington, 431 U.S. 181, 187, 97 S.Ct. 1814, 1819, 52 L.Ed.2d 238, 245 (1977).
The right of an individual to invoke the Fifth Amendment at trial is a substantial one. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are many reasons, unrelated to guilt or innocence, why a defendant may decline to testify. Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981). Before a defendant testifies, the trial judge may...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Drayton
...to comment upon a defendant's failure to testify. See also State v. Pierce, 289 S.C. 430, 346 S.E.2d 707 (1986); State v. Gunter, 286 S.C. 556, 335 S.E.2d 542 (1985). The remarks here were imprudent and we caution that such comments to jurors should be avoided in the future. However, we fin......
-
People v. Lucas, Docket No. 69923
...argues that the court exceeded the scope of its authority with these statements. Defendant refers to the opinion in State v. Gunter (1985), 286 S.C. 556, 335 S.E.2d 542, in support of his position. In Gunter, the trial court warned the defendant that "[i]f you do not testify, you know that ......
-
State v. Jenkins
...Owens , 362 S.C. at 178, 607 S.E.2d at 80 (quoting Pierce , 289 S.C. at 434, 346 S.E.2d at 710 ). In each of those six cases—Crisp , Owens , Gunter , Pierce , Cooper , and Butler —however, the trial court made the erroneous statements during the hearing at the conclusion of which the defend......
-
McWee v. State
...See State v. Cooper, 291 S.C. 332, 353 S.E.2d 441 (1986); State v. Pierce, 289 S.C. 430, 346 S.E.2d 707 (1986); State v. Gunter, 286 S.C. 556, 335 S.E.2d 542 (1985). Subsequently, Butler filed a habeas petition on the basis the trial judge had coerced him into testifying.2 The Court noted B......