State v. Hudgins, No. 24289
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | MOORE; TOAL, WALLER, JJ., and A. LEE CHANDLER; FINNEY; FINNEY |
| Citation | 319 S.C. 233,460 S.E.2d 388 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Joseph Paul HUDGINS, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 24289 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1995 |
Page 388
v.
Joseph Paul HUDGINS, Appellant.
Decided July 24, 1995.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 25, 1995.
Page 389
[319 S.C. 234] John H. Blume, Leslie Ross Hall, and David P. Voisin, S.C. Death Penalty Resource Center, of Columbia; and S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, and Deputy Atty. Gen. Salley Elliott, Columbia; and Sol. George M. Ducworth, Anderson, for respondent.
[319 S.C. 235] MOORE, Justice:
Appellant was convicted of murder and larceny and sentenced to death in July 1993. We affirm.
Appellant and Terry Cheek were driving a stolen truck when they were stopped by Officer Chris Taylor. Officer Taylor stopped them because a hose was dragging 250 feet from the truck. He did not know the truck was stolen. After showing appellant and Cheek the hose, Officer Taylor suggested they continue their conversation in his patrol car to get out of the rain. While walking toward the patrol car, Officer Taylor was shot once in the head. Appellant and Cheek ran into the woods to appellant's house which was several miles away. Appellant hid the gun in a rain gutter at his house and Cheek went home.
Several days later appellant and Cheek were arrested. Both made statements implicating appellant as the triggerman. Cheek pled guilty to accessory after the fact and testified for the State. At trial, appellant contended he confessed to the murder only because he was younger than Cheek and thought the system would be more lenient on him. Cheek was eighteen at the time of the murder and appellant was seventeen. 1 Appellant was convicted of murder and larceny.
Page 390
The jury found two aggravating circumstances: murder of a law enforcement officer and murder committed while in the commission of larceny with a deadly weapon.1) Pretrial hearing
Appellant contends his due process rights were violated because he was not present at the pretrial hearing during which the trial judge decided to bring in a jury from another county because of pretrial publicity. Appellant did not object to his absence from the pretrial hearing. [319 S.C. 236] Therefore, this issue is not preserved. State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991) (must make a contemporaneous objection to preserve error).
2) Juror Qualification
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in qualifying several jurors. Since appellant failed to exhaust all of his peremptory challenges, we need not consider this issue. State v. Green, 301 S.C. 347, 392 S.E.2d 157 (1990).
3) Solicitor Misconduct
Appellant contends the solicitor committed misconduct when he threw a piece of evidence, a ski mask, at appellant during cross-examination in the guilt phase of the trial. Although appellant objected to the solicitor's behavior, the trial judge did not rule on the objection and appellant did not object further or request curative instructions. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for review. State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 207 S.E.2d 414 (1974) (must timely object and ask for a ruling to preserve error).
4) Psychiatric Records
Appellant contends the State's references and questions regarding appellant's psychiatric exam and his answers to a psychological personality test violated appellant's rights. Appellant did not object to this line of questioning. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for review. Torrence, supra.
5) Waiver of Appellant's Right to Closing Argument
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in not obtaining a waiver on the record of his right to closing argument. Appellant did not object and therefore this issue is not preserved. Torrence, supra; cf. State v. Charping, 313 S.C. 147, 437 S.E.2d 88 (1993) (under in favorem vitae review, the omission of an on the record waiver of the right to closing argument mandates reversal).
6) Jury Instructions on Accessory After the Fact and Mere Presence
Appellant contends the trial judge erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on accessory after the fact and, in the alternative, mere presence. We disagree[319 S.C. 237] . Since appellant admitted to being present when the murder occurred, he was not entitled to an instruction on accessory after the fact. State v. Plath, 277 S.C. 126, 284 S.E.2d 221 (1981).
Further, appellant admitted stealing the truck and being involved in a series of unlawful acts which culminated in the murder. Therefore, appellant was not entitled to an instruction on mere presence. State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E.2d 207 (1991) (defendant not entitled to charge when evidence does not warrant it).
7) Victim Impact Evidence
Appellant contends the victim impact evidence placed too great...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tucker, No. 24517
...Failure to exhaust all of a defendant's peremptory strikes will preclude appellate review of juror qualification issues. State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 821, 133 L.Ed.2d 764 (1996). Furthermore, three of the jurors were not seate......
-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, M-156-90
...trial judge to be preserved for appellate review. Issues not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 821, 133 L.Ed.2d 764 (1996) (defendant's claim that his due process rights w......
-
State v. Ard, No. 24840.
...S.C. 234, 471 S.E.2d 689, cert, denied 519 U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 402, 136 L.Ed.2d 316 (1996); State v. Williams, supra; State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 821, 133 L.Ed.2d 764 (1996); State v. Rocheville, supra; State v. Sims, 304 S.C......
-
State v. Higgenbottom, No. 3074.
...original sentence. -------- Notes: 1. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). 2. See State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995) (a defendant's claim that the imposition of the death penalty on a seventeen-year old constituted cruel and unusual ......
-
State v. Tucker, No. 24517
...Failure to exhaust all of a defendant's peremptory strikes will preclude appellate review of juror qualification issues. State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 821, 133 L.Ed.2d 764 (1996). Furthermore, three of the jurors were not seate......
-
Anonymous (M-156-90) v. State Bd. of Medical Examiners, M-156-90
...trial judge to be preserved for appellate review. Issues not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal. State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 821, 133 L.Ed.2d 764 (1996) (defendant's claim that his due process rights w......
-
State v. Ard, No. 24840.
...S.C. 234, 471 S.E.2d 689, cert, denied 519 U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 402, 136 L.Ed.2d 316 (1996); State v. Williams, supra; State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 821, 133 L.Ed.2d 764 (1996); State v. Rocheville, supra; State v. Sims, 304 S.C......
-
State v. Higgenbottom, No. 3074.
...original sentence. -------- Notes: 1. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). 2. See State v. Hudgins, 319 S.C. 233, 460 S.E.2d 388 (1995) (a defendant's claim that the imposition of the death penalty on a seventeen-year old constituted cruel and unusual ......