State v. Joyner, 22596
| Decision Date | 07 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 22596,22596 |
| Citation | 346 S.E.2d 711,289 S.C. 436 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Benjamin Anthony JOYNER, Appellant. . Heard |
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Amie L. Clifford, and James C. Anders, Sol. of the Fifth Judicial Circuit, Columbia, for respondent.
Chief Atty. William Isaac Diggs, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
The appellant, Benjamin Anthony Joyner, and co-defendants, Marcellus Pierce, Jr., and William Anthony Nesmith, were convicted of murder, kidnapping, first degree criminal sexual conduct, grand larceny and conspiracy. Joyner was sentenced to life for murder, life for kidnapping to run consecutively to the sentence for murder, thirty (30) years for criminal sexual conduct consecutive to the two (2) life sentences, ten (10) years for grand larceny consecutive to the thirty (30) years, and five (5) years for conspiracy to run consecutive to all other sentences. We reverse and remand.
Barbara Rossi was abducted from the Woodhill Mall parking lot in Richland County and taken to a nearby remote area where she was raped, robbed and shot to death. Joyner and co-defendants Pierce and Nesmith were indicted and tried together for the crimes.
After reviewing the eight exceptions filed by the appellant, it is the conclusion of this Court that we need only address Exception Number 2. Appellant alleges the trial judge committed reversible error in his jury instructions because the instructions invited or permitted the jury to prematurely deliberate the case. The trial judge instructed the jury in his introductory charge not to deliberate about the case until it is concluded. He further instructed, "By that also I don't say that in the evening or during lunch or something you are not naturally going to be talking about the case." Prior to the weekend recess, the trial judge again instructed the jury,
This Court held that these identical jury instructions were inherently prejudicial and required reversal in co-defendant Pierce's case, State v. Marcellus Pierce, Jr., 346 S.E.2d 707 (S.C.1986). A jury should not begin discussing the case, nor deciding the issues, until all the evidence has been introduced, the arguments of counsel complete, and the applicable law charged. Id.; State v. Gill, 273 S.C. 190, 255 S.E.2d 455 (1979); State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979).
The reasoning behind this holding against premature jury deliberation is best...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Resko
...States v. Lemus, 542 F.2d 222, 224 (4th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 947, 97 S.Ct. 1584, 51 L.Ed.2d 794 (1977); State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); Commonwealth v. Kerpan, 508 Pa. 418, 498 A.2d 829 (1985); People v. Feldman, 87 Mich.App. 157, 274 N.W.2d 1 (1978); Lill......
-
State v. Aldret
...(1992); Gallman v. State, 307 S.C. 273, 414 S.E.2d 780 (1992) State v. Pierce, 289 S.C. 430, 346 S.E.2d 707 (1986); State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 253 S.E.2d 103 (1979); State v. Gill, 273 S.C. 190, 192, 255 S.E.2d 455, 457 (1979). The ......
-
People v. Preciado-Flores
...the case with less than a fully open mind, see Winebrenner v. United States, 147 F.2d 322 (8th Cir.1945); see also State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); (3) premature deliberations may occur before a defendant has a chance to present all of his or her evidence and may, there......
-
Owens v. State, 24812.
...vacated life sentences for kidnapping when the defendant received a concurrent sentence under the murder statute. State v. Joyner, 289 S.C. 436, 346 S.E.2d 711 (1986); State v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 317 S.E.2d 129 (1984); State v. Stroman, 281 S.C. 508, 316 S.E.2d 395 (1984); State v. Per......
-
Let Jurors Talk: Authorizing Pre-Deliberation Discussion of the Evidence During Trial
...542 F.2d 222 (4th Cir. 1976); State v. Thomas, 414 S.E.2d 783 (S.C. 1992); Gallman v. State, 414 S.E.2d 780 (S.C. 1992); State v. Joyner, 346 S.E.2d 711 (S.C. 1986); State v. Pierce, 346 S.E.2d 707 (S.C. 1986); State v. Castonguay, 481 A.2d 56 (Conn. 1984); State v. Washington, 438 A.2d 114......