State v. Owens, No. 25916.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 362 S.C. 175,607 S.E.2d 78 |
| Docket Number | No. 25916. |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Freddie Eugene OWENS, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2004 |
362 S.C. 175
607 S.E.2d 78
v.
Freddie Eugene OWENS, Appellant
No. 25916.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard November 16, 2004.
Decided December 20, 2004.
Acting Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
Justice WALLER:
Appellant, Freddie Eugene Owens, was convicted of murder, armed robbery, use of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery; he was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the murder and armed robbery convictions,1 but remanded the matter to the circuit court for a new sentencing proceeding due to counsel's inability to fully investigate a statement made by Owens the day before his sentencing proceeding.2 State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637, 552 S.E.2d 745 (2001). At resentencing, Owens elected a bench trial. After a hearing, the trial judge sentenced him to death.
FACTS3
At the resentencing proceeding, Owens indicated to the trial court that he did not wish to testify. The court advised Owens that if he had a jury trial, the jury would be required to unanimously agree on a sentence of death, repeatedly telling him that it only took one vote to get a sentence of life. The court went on to advise Owens as follows:
I want to tell you that it's not uncommon, and I've had it happen, where a potential juror will come in and lie to me about getting on the jury. Some of those individuals will come in and lie to me about getting on the jury. Some of362 S.C. 177those individuals will claim to support the death penalty in hopes of getting on the jury. Yes [sic], in reality such a juror is opposed to the death penalty and would never vote for the death penalty. And they, when they're selected and the time comes, they refuse to vote for the death penalty and will only vote for life. That's happened. . . .
Owens then indicated his belief that the opposite could also happen, to which the trial judge responded, "I guess in theory there's a chance for that to happen. I can tell you what I have described to you is more common, and in fact, has happened. And I just leave it at that. It has actually happened. And I'm just being as honest with you as I can."
After a bench trial, Owens was sentenced to death. He now appeals.
ISSUE
Do the trial court's comments concerning Owens' waiver of his right to a jury trial constitute reversible error?
DISCUSSION
Owens asserts the trial court's comments concerning capital sentencing juries were fundamentally erroneous, requiring reversal. We agree.
In State v. Gunter, 286 S.C. 556, 335 S.E.2d 542 (1985), the defendant argued the trial court had coerced him into testifying by advising him that, if he did not testify, the jury would hold it against him. 286 S.C. at 558, 335 S.E.2d at 543...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. Stirling, No. 18-8
...to death anew, but South Carolina's high court again vacated the sentence and remanded for another resentencing. see State v. Owens , 362 S.C. 175, 607 S.E.2d 78, 80 (2004). This time, the Supreme Court found that Owens's waiver of his right to a jury trial wasn't voluntary under South Caro......
-
Owens v. Stirling, C/A No. 0:16-cv-2512-TLW-PJG
...Supreme Court again reversed Owens's death sentence, and the case was remanded for a third sentencing proceeding. State v. Owens, 607 S.E.2d 78 (S.C. 2004); (ECF No. 15-5).Page 4 Third Sentencing Proceeding In his third sentencing proceeding, which began on September 28, 2006, Owens was rep......
-
State v. Jenkins, Appellate Case No. 2019-001280
...(discussing the propriety of a trial court's statements to a capital defendant concerning his right to a trial by jury); State v. Owens , 362 S.C. 175, 178, 607 S.E.2d 78, 79-80 (2004) (same). In Crisp and Owens , we relied on a series of four cases in which the trial court made erroneous s......
-
State v. Jenkins, 28089
...(discussing the propriety of a trial court's statements to a capital defendant concerning his right to a trial by jury); State v. Owens, 362 S.C. 175, 178, 607 S.E.2d 78, 79-80 (2004) (same). In Crisp and Owens, we relied on a series of four cases in which the trial court made erroneous sta......
-
Owens v. Stirling, No. 18-8
...to death anew, but South Carolina's high court again vacated the sentence and remanded for another resentencing. see State v. Owens , 362 S.C. 175, 607 S.E.2d 78, 80 (2004). This time, the Supreme Court found that Owens's waiver of his right to a jury trial wasn't voluntary under South Caro......
-
Owens v. Stirling, C/A No. 0:16-cv-2512-TLW-PJG
...Supreme Court again reversed Owens's death sentence, and the case was remanded for a third sentencing proceeding. State v. Owens, 607 S.E.2d 78 (S.C. 2004); (ECF No. 15-5).Page 4 Third Sentencing Proceeding In his third sentencing proceeding, which began on September 28, 2006, Owens was rep......
-
State v. Jenkins, Appellate Case No. 2019-001280
...(discussing the propriety of a trial court's statements to a capital defendant concerning his right to a trial by jury); State v. Owens , 362 S.C. 175, 178, 607 S.E.2d 78, 79-80 (2004) (same). In Crisp and Owens , we relied on a series of four cases in which the trial court made erroneous s......
-
State v. Jenkins, 28089
...(discussing the propriety of a trial court's statements to a capital defendant concerning his right to a trial by jury); State v. Owens, 362 S.C. 175, 178, 607 S.E.2d 78, 79-80 (2004) (same). In Crisp and Owens, we relied on a series of four cases in which the trial court made erroneous sta......