State v. Owens, No. 21599

CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHARWELL; LEWIS
Citation277 S.C. 189,284 S.E.2d 584
Docket NumberNo. 21599
Decision Date23 November 1981
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Charles A. OWENS, Jr., Appellant.

Page 584

284 S.E.2d 584
277 S.C. 189
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Charles A. OWENS, Jr., Appellant.
No. 21599.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Nov. 23, 1981.

Page 585

[277 S.C. 190] 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.

HARWELL, Justice:

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.

[277 S.C. 191] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Plath, No. 22027
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 12, 1983
    ...35; 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, ce......
  • State v. Wise, No. 25819.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 11, 2004
    ...the defendant 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 couns......
  • State v. Tucker, No. 24864.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 14, 1998
    ...Smart, 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 Section 14-7-1010 provides, in part: "The presiding judge shall at each term of court ascertain the qualifications of ......
  • State v. Atkins, No. 22768
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 4, 1987
    ...capital 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 defendan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Plath, No. 22027
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • September 12, 1983
    ...35; 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, ce......
  • State v. Wise, No. 25819.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 11, 2004
    ...the defendant 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 couns......
  • State v. Tucker, No. 24864.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • December 14, 1998
    ...Smart, 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 Section 14-7-1010 provides, in part: "The presiding judge shall at each term of court ascertain the qualifications of ......
  • State v. Atkins, No. 22768
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 4, 1987
    ...capital 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 defendan......
  • 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