State v. Hamilton, 18759

Citation159 S.E.2d 607,251 S.C. 1
Decision Date14 February 1968
Docket NumberNo. 18759,18759
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Leonard C. HAMILTON, Appellant.

Thomas W. Whiteside, Bobby M. Pruitt, Franklin M. Mann, Spartanburg, for appellant.

Sol. John H. Nolen, Asst.Sol. Claude A. Taylor, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.

BRAILSFORD, Justice.

This is an appeal by Leonard C. Hamilton from his conviction of the murder of a Spartanburg storekeeper and his sentence to death by electrocution. Appellant was arrested without a warrant about five hours after discovery of the homicide. A billfold, a social security card and certain pictures belonging to the victim were found in his possession. These exhibits were admitted in evidence at the trial. The principal ground of appeal is that they should have been excluded as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure in violation of the appellant's rights under the state and federal constitutions.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and Article I, Section 16, of the Constitution of South Carolina, in identical language, proscribe unreasonable searches and seizures. Under our long-settled rule that exhibits which are pertinent to an issue on trial may be received in evidence regardless of the means by which they were obtained, no state constitutional problem is involved. State v. Atkinson, 40 S.C. 363, 18 S.E. 1021; State v. Addy, 210 S.C. 353, 42 S.E.2d 585. It was once axiomatic that the Bill of Rights, the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States, imposed limitations upon the federal government only and were not applicable to the states. However, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, the Supreme Court of the United States held that by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States the Fourth Amendment has been made applicable to the states, and with it the comparatively recent federal doctrine forbidding the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. For the history of the development of this exclusionary doctrine and a discussion of the impact of Mapp, see 8 Wigmore, Evidence Sec. 2183 (McNaughton Rev.1961) and Sec. 2183a, (Supp.1964).

[1, 2] When the defendant was arrested by police officers of the City of Spartanburg, he was taken to police headquarters and required to empty his pockets. The items which have been enumerated were thus discovered and seized by the officers. The applicable federal doctrine sanctions a warrantless search and seizure incident to a lawful arrest. Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327. The point that the exhibits were the fruits of an unlawful search and seizure is bottomed upon the claim that the appellant's arrest without a warrant was illegal. The following quotation from Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142, is applicable and states the test which must be applied in resolving this issue:

"The constitutional validity of the search in this case, then, must depend upon the constitutional validity of the petitioner's arrest. Whether that arrest was constitutionally valid depends in turn upon whether, at the moment the arrest was made, the officers had probable cause to make it--whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the petitioner had committed *** an offense." 379 U.S. at 91, 85 S.Ct. at 225.

It is the function of the court to determine from the evidence whether a warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause. Beck v. State of Ohio, supra. Here the evidence failed to disclose the facts and circumstances which were known to the officers when the arrest was made. Indeed, it appears that the prosecutor acted upon the erroneous view that testimony as to the information furnished the officers by others was unnecessary and would violate the hearsay rule. See 6 Wigmore, Evidence Sec. 1789 (3d ed. 1940). Since testimony on the point was not developed at the trial, it is impossible to ascertain from the record whether or not probable cause for the arrest existed.

The situation is analogous to that in State v. Cannon, 248 S.C. 506, 151 S.E.2d 752, in which a principal ground of appeal was the admission in evidence of a confession without a determination of its voluntariness by a tribunal other than the trial jury, as required by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908. Finding the other grounds of appeal to be without merit and conforming to our view of the requirements of Jackson v. Denno, supra, without granting a new trial, we remanded the case to the trial court for an independent determination of the voluntariness of the confession. We pointed out that if, in fact, the confession was voluntary, the appellant suffered no actual prejudice because this determination was not made at the trial.

As in Cannon, no injustice has been done to appellant here if, in fact, the police had probable cause for arresting him. Determination of the probable cause issue was, and is, the function of the court and can be made now without prejudice to appellant's rights, which will depend upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State v. Charping
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 7, 1992
    ...denied, 400 U.S. 834, 91 S.Ct. 69, 27 L.Ed.2d 66, and cert. denied, 400 U.S. 834, 91 S.Ct. 70, 27 L.Ed.2d 66 (1970); State v. Hamilton, 251 S.C. 1, 159 S.E.2d 607 (1968) (wherein the court remanded a murder conviction for a determination of whether probable cause for the defendant's arrest ......
  • Sanders v. State of South Carolina, Civ. A. No. 68-877.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • January 23, 1969
    ...since their exclusion was in accord with the Constitution at that time. State v. Hollman, 232 S.C. 489, 102 S.E.2d 873; State v. Hamilton, S.C., 159 S.E.2d 607. "Defendant contends however that, although legally constituted at the time it was drawn, the subsequent constitutional change maki......
  • State v. Curley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 7, 1970
    ...with it, the federal doctrine forbidding the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. State v. Hamilton, 251 S.C. 1, 159 S.E.2d 607 (1968). The State does not seek to justify the search as incident to a lawful arrest or upon probable cause. It does contend that ......
  • State v. Stallings, 18995
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 18, 1969
    ...of the United States. State v. Hollman, 232 S.C. 489, 102 S.E.2d 873; State v. Richburg, 250 S.C. 451, 158 S.E.2d 769; State v. Hamilton, 251 S.C. 1, 159 S.E.2d 607. Also, see McCreight v. South Carolina, 4 Cir., 408 F.2d 1018, and 47 Am.Jur(2d), Jury, Section 171, page 762. We call attenti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT