State v. Ledford

• Decision Date: 15 July 2002
• Docket Number: No. 3535.,3535.
• Citation: 351 S.C. 83,567 S.E.2d 904
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Ricky Clyde LEDFORD, Appellant.

351 S.C. 83

567 S.E.2d 904

The STATE, Respondent, v. Ricky Clyde LEDFORD, Appellant.

No. 3535.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard June 4, 2002.

Decided July 15, 2002.

Rehearing Denied August 22, 2002.

Certiorari Denied January 8, 2003.

Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson and Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, of Columbia; Solicitor Robert M. Ariail, of Greenville, for respondent.

HEARN, Chief Judge:

Ricky Ledford appeals his conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense. We reverse.

FACTS

On September 30, 1999, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Patty Channell and Damon Duncan were sitting in Channell's car at an intersection. Duncan noticed a white Buick approach the intersection at a high rate of speed and cautioned Channell not to enter the intersection. The Buick entered the intersection, swerved to miss another car, and collided with Channell's car. The Buick then left the accident scene; Duncan, however, recorded the Buick's tag number and gave it to the investigating officer, Johnathan Craig.

After running a check on the tag number, Officer Craig learned the Buick was registered to Willie Ledford. When Officer Craig went to Willie Ledford's residence, he learned she had loaned the car to her son, Ricky Ledford. Officer Craig went to the house where Ms. Ledford said her son could be found and discovered the Buick pulled into a large shrub with a carpet covering its back end. Officer Craig got permission from a resident to enter the house and found Ricky Ledford "passed out" and slumped over on a couch, smelling strongly of alcohol. He attempted to awaken Ledford to question him about the accident; however, Ledford drifted in and out of consciousness. While in the house, Officer Craig informed Ledford they would need to return to the accident scene. Officer Craig testified that as they were leaving the house, Ledford

started falling down toward the ground all together. So at that point, I kind of had to pick him up. I guess the way I describe it is like a groomsman carrying a bride across the threshold, you know, to kind of pick him up like that to carry him to my car where I got out there where I could prop him up, stand him up and prop him up on the hood of the car.

During one of Ledford's brief periods of consciousness, Officer Craig asked him whether he had anything to drink since the accident, to which Ledford allegedly answered "no." Officer Craig stated, "At that time I had to lean [Ledford] over the hood of my car, just kind of lay him up on it, droop him over so I could unlock the passenger side . . . and he just slumped over the whole time." Officer Craig then handcuffed Ledford, secured him in the passenger's seat, and drove him back to the accident scene where Duncan and Channell positively identified Ledford as the driver of the Buick. At that point, Officer Craig placed Ledford under arrest and read him his Miranda rights.

Prior to trial, Ledford objected to the admission of his statement to Officer Craig. He argued he could not have made a voluntary statement drifting in and out of consciousness while being carried to Officer Craig's patrol car. The trial court ruled the statement was admissible without holding a hearing to determine whether it was voluntarily made, and found that any inquiry into whether the statement was voluntarily made in light of Ledford's mental state at the time was "an issue for the jury." Ledford further argued he could not have waived his Miranda rights because they were not given to him before he made the statement. The State took the position Ledford was not in custody when he made the statement. The trial court declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether Ledford was in custody at the time he gave the statement, again finding the issue was for the jury.

DISCUSSION

Ledford first asserts the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine the voluntariness of his statement pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). We agree.

Generally, a criminal defendant is entitled to an independent evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury to challenge the introduction of evidence "that was allegedly obtained by conduct violative of the defendant's constitutional rights." State v. Patton, 322 S.C. 408, 410, 472 S.E.2d 245, 247 (1996) (quoting State v. Blassingame, 271 S.C. 44, 47-48, 244 S.E.2d 528, 530 (1978)). If the State seeks to introduce a defendant's statement into evidence, the trial court is charged with making an initial determination, through an evidentiary hearing, as to whether the statement was voluntarily made. State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54, 55-56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988). "The trial judge's determination of the voluntariness of a statement must be made on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused." State v. Franklin, 299 S.C. 133, 138, 382 S.E.2d 911, 914 (1989).

In this case, we find the evidence necessitated a voluntariness hearing pursuant to Jackson v. Denno. The record reveals that Ledford was in and out of consciousness during the time in which he answered Officer Craig's question and Ledford's attorney clearly objected to its admission. The trial court's summary ruling that Ledford's ability to answer any questions was "an issue for the jury," failed to resolve the issue of whether or not the statement was voluntary. As such, we agree with Ledford that the trial court erred in failing to make an initial determination as to the voluntariness of the statement. Moreover, we find great potential for prejudice in the admission of Ledford's statement. The admission that he did not have anything to drink after the accident was a determining issue, particularly in light of...