State v. Linnen, 21754

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation278 S.C. 175,293 S.E.2d 851
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Monroe Jefferson LINNEN a/k/a Jeffery Monroe Linnen, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 21754,21754
Decision Date08 July 1982

Page 851

293 S.E.2d 851
278 S.C. 175
The STATE, Respondent,
Monroe Jefferson LINNEN a/k/a Jeffery Monroe Linnen, Appellant.
No. 21754.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
July 8, 1982.

Page 852

Deputy Appellate Defender David W. Carpenter, of S. C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, and Jeffrey H. Gray, Hilton Head, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Preston F. McDaniel, Columbia, and Sol. Randolph Murdaugh, Jr., Hampton, for respondent.

[278 S.C. 176] LITTLEJOHN, Justice:

The Defendant, Monroe Jefferson Linnen, was tried by jury and found guilty of housebreaking and larceny from the residence of Colonel Stanley Butts. After sentencing to imprisonment by the court, he appealed, alleging three grounds of error warranting a new trial. As copied from his brief, the questions are as follows:

I. Were appellant's self-incriminating statements acquired in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as explicated in Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona ?

II. Were appellant's self-incriminating statements involuntarily given?

III. Did the court err in refusing to instruct the jury of its duty to make a factual determination regarding whether appellant's self-incriminating statements were acquired in compliance with the Fifth Amendment?

The facts leading up to the Defendant's interrogation and subsequent trial are as follows:

In late 1980 and the early part of 1981, police officers were investigating numerous break-ins and thefts from residences in the Beaufort area. Included among the break-ins was one which occurred at the home of Colonel Butts. Thieves had entered, taken a safe, silverware and other items described in the indictment as being of a $13,000 value. The Sheriff's Department found fingerprints matching those of the Defendant at some of the houses (not Colonel Butts') and requested the Defendant to come to the office for questioning on March 11, 1981. During an interrogation lasting about one and one-half hours, the Defendant denied any involvement in the break-ins. The officers served a warrant upon him and charged him with breaking and entering the homes of Spears and Ragsdale. He was arraigned and filled out an affidavit of indigency and an application for counsel. In the application, he averred that he had a monthly income of $1,200-$1,400, owned 46 acres of land valued at $86,000, and had $4,000 in cash. He was obviously not entitled to a [278 S.C. 177] free lawyer at the expense of the government and was returned to the jail.

On the following day, officers decided to talk with him again, brought him from the jail, and, for the second time, gave him his Miranda rights warning. The interrogation was taped and translated and is a part of the record before us. At the inception, the following taped conversation took place between Officer George Wagner and the Defendant, Monroe Jefferson Linnen:

GW: You are presently incarcerated in the Beaufort County Jail?

JL: Yes sir.

GW: You were arraigned at the Courthouse?

JL: Yes sir.

GW: And you have decided to obtain your own attorney?

JL: Yes sir.

The Defendant then affirmed that his rights had been explained to him and the following took place:

Okay. Now Monroe, you...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Salisbury, 2792.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 17, 1998
    ...of the Fourteenth Amendment. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167, 107 S.Ct. 515, 521-22, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); see State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 293 S.E.2d 851 (1982)(statements were given freely and voluntarily where interrogating officers were not coercive or threatening and stateme......
  • State v. Santiago, 4127.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 19, 2006
    ...S.Ct. 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (2000) (citations omitted); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 30, 538 S.E.2d 248, 253 (2000); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179, 293 S.E.2d 851, 853 (1982); State v. Gillian, 360 S.C. 433, 458, 602 S.E.2d 62, 76 (Ct.App.2004); see also State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, ......
  • State v. Miller, 4307.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 19, 2007
    ...Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990); State v. Howard, 296 S.C. 481, 488, 374 S.E.2d 284, 288 (1988); State v. Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 179, 293 S.E.2d 851, 853-54 (1982); State v. Rabon, 275 S.C. 459, 462, 272 S.E.2d 634, 636 The State bears the burden of showing the state......
  • State v. Arrowood, 4304.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 17, 2007
    ...predicate to finding a statement is not voluntary. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Linnen, 278 S.C. 175, 293 S.E.2d 851. Coercion is determined from the perspective of the suspect. Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S.Ct. 2394, 110 L.Ed.2d 243 A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT