State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 24 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4507.,4507. |
| Citation | 675 S.E.2d 764 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jomer HILL, Appellant. |
Jomer Hill appeals his murder convictions arguing the trial court erred in admitting testimony of a police informant who was allowed to invoke the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination. Hill further contends the trial court erred in failing to give a jury instruction permitting the jury to draw an adverse inference from the informant's refusal to answer questions and in denying his motion for mistrial based on the solicitor's closing argument. We affirm.
Hill was convicted and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment for the murders of Ken Goldsmith and Trey Brown in December of 2000. The lengthy trial produced numerous witnesses who testified to a drug-selling operation in which Trey Brown and Hill sold drugs for a man named Mont Brown. The victims were discovered shot in a liquor house1 frequented by all of the aforementioned parties.
Witnesses observed Hill and Mont Brown having a serious private discussion at the liquor house the day before the murders. Witnesses also testified Trey Brown had a confrontation with Mont Brown the night before the murder regarding the division of profits from drugs Trey had sold.
Antone Jones testified he sold drugs for Mont Brown and as a member of the organization you were responsible for any other members you brought into the business. Jones stated Mont Brown had instructed him to kill his own cousin when the cousin was arrested. Jones testified Hill had brought Trey Brown into the business.
The mother of Hill's child, Chasaity Drummond, testified she was at Hill's mother's house picking up her child the morning after the murders. Hill went inside, changed his clothes, and asked Drummond to throw away a bag for him on her way out. Hill cautioned Drummond she should not throw the bag away at her home.
Maxie Wright, a former, long-time boyfriend of Hill's mother,2 testified Hill told him Mont Brown had threatened to kill Hill's entire family if Hill did not kill the victims. Wright also testified Hill maintained his innocence.
The most damaging testimony against Hill was elicited from a police informant, Timothy Paden. Paden testified Hill had confessed to him while they were both in the Greenville County Detention Center. Paden further testified regarding a recording he later made of Paden allegedly confessing to the crime.3 On cross-examination, Paden refused to answer questions regarding a plea agreement he had made with federal authorities on an apparently unrelated drug charge. The federal authorities discovered Paden had provided false information to them regarding a murder in an effort to have his sentence reduced. Paden told the federal authorities Mont Brown murdered another drug dealer Andre Rosemond, because Rosemond had kidnapped Mont Brown's wife and child. Paden failed a polygraph examination and confessed to fabricating this story. When his dishonesty was discovered, the federal judge sentenced Paden to twenty years.
The trial court determined the specific details of the violated plea agreement were collateral to Hill's case thus, Hill's right to cross-examine Paden was not impermissibly limited by Paden's invoking the Fifth Amendment on questions relating to the failed agreement and Mont Brown. Furthermore, the State agreed, with some prodding from the trial court, to stipulate Paden had previously provided false information to federal authorities in order to receive a reduced sentence.
Paden answered in the affirmative when asked if he had violated a plea agreement that required his cooperation and his honesty. Furthermore, upon cross-examination, Paden admitted to having criminal convictions of his own and to reporting crimes in exchange for the reward money available through the Crimestoppers program. At the conclusion of all testimony, Hill requested a jury instruction that jurors may infer a witness's answer to a question would be adverse if that witness invoked the Fifth Amendment. The trial court refused the instruction.
In closing arguments, the State attempted to neutralize the defense's emphasis on Mont Brown's role in the case by pointing out that Hill was the only person on trial before this jury. The solicitor stated The solicitor later stated The defense then objected and the discussion relating to the objection was later placed on the record arguing the last statement by the solicitor commented on Hill's failure to put up a defense and call witnesses. The court took the defense's argument and motion for mistrial under advisement and later determined the comment was meant to focus the jury on the question of Hill's innocence or guilt as opposed to Mont Brown's culpability and did not, in context, unfairly comment on Hill's right not to testify. This appeal followed.
Hill argues the trial court erred in admitting Paden's testimony regarding the victims' murders and permitting Paden to refuse to answer certain questions on cross-examination. We disagree.
The right of a defendant in a federal court to confront the witnesses against him, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, includes the right to test the truth of those witnesses' testimony by cross-examination. U.S. v. Cardillo, 316 F.2d 606, 610 (2nd Cir. 1963). This right is also guaranteed by our State constitution. See State v. Nest Egg Soc. Today, Inc., 290 S.C. 124, 130, 348 S.E.2d 381, 385 (Ct.App.1986).
The importance of cross-examination in our jurisprudence has been well stated by Professor Wigmore:
Cardillo, 316 F.2d at 610-11 (quoting 5 Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (3d ed.1940)). Nevertheless, "[t]he trial court retains discretion to `impose reasonable limits on [the scope] of cross-examination designed to show the prototypical form of bias on the part of a witness.' " State v. Graham, 314 S.C. 383, 385-86, 444 S.E.2d 525, 527 (1994) (citations omitted).
The seminal case on this issue is Cardillo, 316 F.2d at 610. In Cardillo, the court discussed the scenarios that could occur when a witness is presented to testify against a defendant and allowed to plead the Fifth Amendment on cross-examination.
Where the privilege has been invoked as to purely collateral matters, there is little danger of prejudice to the defendant and therefore, the witness's testimony may be used against him. On the other hand, if the witness by invoking the privilege precludes inquiry into the details of his direct testimony, there may be a substantial danger of prejudice because the defense is deprived of the right to test the truth of his direct testimony and, therefore, that witness's testimony should be stricken in whole or in part.
Id. at 611. Questions on cross-examination are collateral if they relate solely to the witness's credibility and bear no relation to the subject matter of the direct examination. Id.
On direct examination, Paden testified primarily to the contents of his taped conversation with Hill in which Hill answered "yeah" to the question of whether he was alone when he shot Trey and Ken. Paden testified about the events surrounding the making of that tape, and he testified about his past police informant activities and rewards he had received through the Crimestoppers program. The State questioned Paden regarding his current incarceration on drug charges and the violated plea agreement.
Q. Last question, Mr. Paden.... First of all, did you enter into some kind of an agreement with the Federal Government?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And was it the position of the Federal Government that you violated the terms of that agreement, with particularity toward your honesty?
A. Yes, sir, but due to my appeal I'm not even allowed to discuss it, sir.
From the record, it appears Hill sought to elicit more details from Paden regarding the specifics of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...affirmative several times when Paden asks if [Petitioner] was alone when he shot Trey and [Goldsmith.]" State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 365 n. 3, 675 S.E.2d 764, 767 n. 3 (Ct.App.2009).According to Brown, on the morning of the crimes, Petitioner arrived at Brown's house between 9:30 and 10:00 ......
-
State v. Bailey
... ... 265, 269, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ... "There is no reversible error in the admission of ... evidence that is cumulative to other evidence properly ... admitted." State v. Griffin , 339 S.C. 74, ... 77-78, 528 S.E.2d 668, 670 (2000); see also State v ... Hill , 409 S.C. 50, 57, 760 S.E.2d 802, 806 (2014) ... (holding admission of a letter into evidence did not amount ... to reversible error, as the evidence contained in the letter ... was merely cumulative to other evidence). Contrary to ... Bailey's arguments, the evidence ... ...
-
State v. Bailey
...solely to the witness's credibility and bear no relation to the subject matter of the direct examination." State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 367, 675 S.E.2d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2009). Here, questions concerning Walker's guilt or innocence to unrelatedpending criminal charges were collateral to hi......
-
Hill v. Cartledge
...own and to reporting crimes in exchange for the reward money available through the Crimestoppers program.State v. Hill, 382 S.C. 360, 364-66, 675 S.E.2d 764, 766-67 (Ct. App. 2009).APPLICABLE LAWSummary Judgment Standard Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary j......