State v. Hill, 24803.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 24803.,24803. |
| Citation | 501 S.E.2d 122,331 S.C. 94 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. David Clayton HILL, Appellant. |
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorneys General Christie Newman Barrett and Robert F. Daley, Jr., Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph J. Wilson, Conway, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of murdering a police officer and sentenced to death. We affirm.
On March 7, 1994, Officer Spencer Guerry of the Georgetown Police Department stopped appellant in the parking lot of a car wash. Appellant was driving a silver/gray Honda Prelude with expired Colorado plates. He did not have a valid driver's license and he had marijuana in the car. Officer Guerry took appellant's Colorado identification card and car registration and called the information in to the dispatcher. As he was walking back to appellant's car, he was shot once through the cheek.
After the shooting, appellant drove to his house, picked up his girlfriend, Wendy, and some of his belongings, and then drove to his mother's mobile home. He told his mother he was in trouble and asked if Wendy could borrow her car. His mother refused but offered to drive. His mother and Wendy followed appellant down a dirt road where appellant drove his car into a ditch. They then returned to his mother's mobile home and appellant asked Wendy to report his car stolen. Wendy refused. Appellant left the mobile home for a while. During his absence, the police arrived searching for appellant. Later, appellant returned to his mother's mobile home. He took a shower, washed his clothes, and poured Clorox on his hands. He then called the police and was arrested. Appellant's defense at trial was that someone had been hiding in his backseat and shot Officer Guerry. At trial, several witnesses testified appellant was the only person in the Honda.
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in refusing to allow a witness to testify about hearsay evidence under the excited utterance or res gestae exception. We disagree.
Kenneth Grant was a block away from the car wash when the shooting occurred. Fifteen minutes after the shooting, Grant went to the car wash. He testified in camera that after being at the car wash for another 15 or 20 minutes, he heard an unidentifiable person in the crowd state there were two suspects. The trial judge ruled this hearsay testimony inadmissible.
Rule 803(2), SCRE, states:
The rationale behind the excited utterance exception is that the startling event suspends the declarant's process of reflective thought, thus reducing the likelihood of fabrication. See State v. Harrison, 298 S.C. 333, 380 S.E.2d 818 (1989)
(). In determining whether a statement falls within the excited utterance exception, the totality of the circumstances is viewed. Id.
"Statements which are not based on firsthand information, as where the declarant was not an actual witness to the event, are not admissible under the excited utterance or spontaneous declaration exception to the hearsay rule." 23 C.J.S. Crim.Law § 876 (1989). The hearsay statement of an unknown bystander is admissible under the excited utterance exception only when the circumstances which surround it would affect the declarant in a way that assures its spontaneity and, therefore, its reliability for trustworthiness. People v. Mares, 705 P.2d 1013, 1016 (Colo.App.1985). See also People v. Fields, 71 Ill.App.3d 888, 28 Ill.Dec. 202, 390 N.E.2d 369 (1979)
(); State v. Kent, 157 Mich.App. 780, 404 N.W.2d 668 (1987) (); Commonwealth v. Stetler, 494 Pa. 551, 431 A.2d 992 (1981) (); Underwood v. State, 604 S.W.2d 875 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1979) (). Cf. Crawford v. Charleston-Isle of Palms Traction Co., 126 S.C. 447, 120 S.E. 381 (1923) ().
There is no evidence the unidentified declarant witnessed the shooting. Further, it is unknown whether the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event. Therefore, the trial judge did not err in ruling this statement inadmissible.
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in refusing to clear the courtroom and the hallways of uniformed officers. Appellant also moved for the trial judge to order officers who were witnesses to dress in civilian clothing.1 Appellant contends this was a show of force which denied him a fair trial. We disagree.
To prevail on such a claim, appellant must show that the measures taken in the courtroom created either an actual or inherent prejudicial effect on the jury. Inherent prejudice occurs when "an unacceptable risk is presented of impermissible factors coming into play." Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 1346-47, 89 L.Ed.2d 525, 535 (1986). State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 478 S.E.2d 260, 271 (1996) (citing Holbrook). In Holbrook, the United States Supreme Court held the presence of four uniformed officers seated directly behind the defendant was not so inherently prejudicial that respondent was thereby denied his constitutional right to a fair trial.
Here, appellant conceded that of the six people he counted, some were bailiffs and personnel of the solicitor's office. We cannot tell from the record how many uniformed officers were present. We also cannot tell if these officers were witnesses waiting to testify. There were at least 17 police officers (not counting SLED agents) who testified.
In this case, the number of officers is unknown and the role of the majority of the officers was not to provide additional security, but rather testify as witnesses. Any actual prejudice in this case is wholly speculative. Appellant simply has presented no evidence to show the presence of the officers had any effect on the jury. Further, without anything more than the mere assertion that six officers were present in the courtroom, we cannot find appellant has shown any inherent prejudice. Accordingly, we find no actual or inherent prejudice.2 Moreover, at the sentencing phase, appellant renewed his objection and the trial judge went over specifically the number of officers in the courtroom. The trial judge again denied the motion and appellant is not appealing this ruling. Appellant stated there were four bailiffs, one uniformed officer near him, two uniformed officers near the door and two uniformed officers on the back row. The appellant then stated if that was all of the officers in the courtroom, he was satisfied. He was concerned the courtroom might fill up with officers at a later time. There were fewer officers present during the guilt phase which is the basis for this issue on appeal.
As to requiring the officers who were witnesses to dress in civilian clothing, we find this issue has no merit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the officers to testify while in uniform since the officers were acting in their official capacity and not as civilians. People v. Beil, 76 Ill.App.3d 924, 32 Ill.Dec. 290, 395 N.E.2d 400 (1979). See also Brown v. Indiana, 256 Ind. 444, 446, 269 N.E.2d 377, 378 (1971)
()
Television cameras
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in refusing to order the television cameras to discontinue filming during jury selection. Appellant argues the television cameras were intimidating the jurors. We disagree.
On appeal, appellant points to two jurors. One juror originally had not given correct information about his mental status. The juror sent the trial judge a note stating he did not give correct information and he wanted to inform the court he was on medication for depression. The trial judge cleared the courtroom and inquired as to the juror's mental status and his medication. This juror stated, "[T]here were people in the room that I did not want to have this information ..." The juror never stated he was troubled by only the media or, in particular, the cameras. The other juror stated he thought the voir dire process was going to be more private and he did not realize the media and others would be present. Appellant's argument addresses only the presence of television cameras in the courtroom, while these jurors' concerns were about privacy in general. Further, we note both of these jurors were found unqualified by the trial judge.
Lastly, appellant contends camera crews from three television stations were present at trial and created a disruptive atmosphere. This information is not in the record. In fact, when appellant made this motion, the court noted there was only one television crew present. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to remove the cameras from the courtroom. Accordingly, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ross
...v. Wilson, 74 Ohio St. 3d 381, 386-87, 659 N.E.2d 292, cert. denied, 519 U.S. 845, 117 S. Ct. 129, 136 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1996); State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 501 S.E.2d 122, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1043, 119 S. Ct. 597, 142 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1998). Indeed, as the court in McVeigh noted, some courts h......
-
State v. Powers
...jurors their opinion of various mitigating circumstances. We recently rejected an identical contention in State v. David Clayton Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 501 S.E.2d 122 (1998). See also State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 482 S.E.2d 760 (1997) (upholding trial court's limitation of voir dire regardin......
-
State v. Humphries, 3380.
...in limine seeks a pretrial evidentiary ruling to prevent the disclosure of potentially prejudicial matter to the jury. State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 501 S.E.2d 122 (1998). A pretrial ruling in limine is not final; unless an objection is made at the time the evidence is offered and a final rul......
-
State v. Johnson
...discretion in trial judge's refusal to permit voir dire inquiry into jurors' views on particular mitigating factors); State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 501 S.E.2d 122, 127 (1998) (stating Morgan held the defendant was entitled to know "if jurors would consider general mitigating evidence ... [not......