State v. Owens, 21599
| Citation | 277 S.C. 189,284 S.E.2d 584 |
| Decision Date | 23 November 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 21599,21599 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Charles A. OWENS, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Deputy Appellate Defender Vance J. Bettis of S. C. Com'n of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Lindy P. Funkhouser, Columbia, and Sol. William W. Wilkins, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Appellant Charles A. Owens, Jr. appeals his convictions of murder and armed robbery. After rendering a verdict of guilty, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the sentence. The trial judge sentenced appellant to life imprisonment for murder and a consecutive term of twenty-five years for armed robbery. We affirm.
On January 17, 1980, Gordon K. Ausley was shot and killed during the armed robbery of his grocery store in Greenville County, South Carolina. Appellant was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida and later indicted in South Carolina for the crimes.
Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence located as a result of both appellant's confession and his accompanying law enforcement officials to the site. We disagree. Appellant was arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, by a contingent of Florida and South Carolina law enforcement officials. After he was advised of his rights, appellant waived his right to counsel, agreed to cooperate, and signed a voluntary statement. He admitted killing the deceased and described where he had thrown the deceased's wallet and driver's license. He waived extradition and was returned to the Greenville County Law Enforcement Center. Meanwhile, appellant's family had retained a Greenville attorney who requested that law enforcement officials inform him immediately upon appellant's arrival. Instead, appellant was driven to the area where he had thrown deceased's wallet. As a result, the deceased's driver's license was found, but the wallet was not discovered until the following day. Afterwards, appellant was interrogated on tape before he saw his attorney. At trial the judge suppressed the tape recorded statement given by appellant without assistance of counsel. However, the wallet and driver's license were admitted as evidence because their location had been divulged through the lawful custodial interrogation in Florida. Appellant alleges this evidence was the tainted fruit of the incriminating custodial admission in South Carolina in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
There is no dispute that at the time appellant initially informed the law officers of the evidence's location, he voluntarily had waived his right to counsel. Thus, the law enforcement officials learned nothing new when appellant rode with them to the site; his presence merely facilitated the discovery. Although it was improper for appellant, without assistance of counsel, to accompany the officers to the site, his voluntary confession standing alone was enough to convict him. Any evidence received from the appellant accompanying officials to the disposal site was merely cumulative and was therefore harmless error. State v. Tyner, 273 S.C. 646, 258 S.E.2d 559 (1979); State v. Blackburn, 271 S.C. 324, 247 S.E.2d 334 (1978). In any event, law enforcement officials would have discovered the evidence based solely on the description in the lawful confession.
Next, appellant claims two exceptions based on violations of certain rights accorded him under Section 16-3-20, our death penalty statute. Duringvoir dire, two prospective jurors were disqualified by the court when they indicated opposition to the death penalty. Appellant's attorney was not permitted to examine the two jurors. This was error. The evident purpose of Section 16-3-20(D) is to secure to defense counsel in death cases the right to question jurors during their voir dire examination. State v. Smart, 274...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Plath
...State v. Linder, 276 S.C. 304, 313, 278 S.E.2d 335, 340; State v. Hyman, 276 S.C. 559, 563, 281 S.E.2d 209, 211-212; State v. Owens, 277 S.C. 189, 192, 284 S.E.2d 584, 586; State v. Koon, 278 S.C. 528, 532, 298 S.E.2d 769, 771; State v. Copeland, 278 S.C. 572, 579, 300 S.E.2d 63, 67, cert. ......
-
State v. Wise
...was sentenced to death; therefore, we reversed and remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding. Id; see also State v. Owens, 277 S.C. 189, 192, 284 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1981) (finding error in trial courts dismissal of two potential jurors for cause, without allowing defense counsel to examine ......
-
State v. Tucker
...274 S.C. at 305, 262 S.E.2d at 912 (footnote added). See also State v. Atkins, 293 S.C. 294, 360 S.E.2d 302 (1987); State v. Owens, 277 S.C. 189, 284 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1981). Section 14-7-1010 provides, in part: "The presiding judge shall at each term of court ascertain the qualifications of......
-
State v. Atkins
...punishment any person called as a juror shall be examined by the attorney for the defense." (emphasis added). In State v. Owens 277 S.C. 189, 284 S.E.2d 584 (1981), this Court addressed this issue. While we ultimately found the issue to be moot in the Owens case because the defendant was gi......