State v. Roof
| Decision Date | 08 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 23033,23033 |
| Citation | 298 S.C. 351,380 S.E.2d 828 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Charles Nolan ROOF, Appellant. . Heard |
Chief Atty. William I. Diggs, Deputy Chief Atty. Elizabeth C. Fullwood, and Asst. Appellate Defender D. Mark Stokes, all of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Staff Atty. Gwendolyn L. Fuller, Columbia, and Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.
Appellant Charles Nolan Roof and his co-defendant James Frank Copeland were indicted on two counts: (1) the murder of Douglas Wayne Hutto and (2) unlawful use of a sawed-off shotgun. Both pleaded not guilty and were tried simultaneously before the same judge and jury. Appellant was convicted on both counts, while Copeland was convicted only of being an accessory after the fact of murder. We now reverse appellant's convictions and remand for a new trial.
Appellant, Copeland and Hutto worked for the same company. Copeland lived with appellant in appellant's trailer. On Friday, January 17, 1987, the three men left work together in appellant's truck, bought liquor, and started driving around and drinking. The three drank at appellant's When questioned on Saturday, appellant and Copeland both gave statements to the effect that they had left Hutto at a shopping mall Friday night and had not seen him since then. On Monday, both appellant and Copeland gave nearly identical new statements. A homicide detective related the redacted substance of these new statements to the jury as follows:
trailer, then began visiting bars and drinking excessively. After midnight, the men returned to appellant's trailer and went inside. A short time later, Hutto was killed by a shotgun blast to his chest. Law enforcement officers found Hutto's body on the side of a road the next day
[Appellant] ... [s]aid
* * * * * *
[Copeland] ... said
Copeland testified to substantially the same facts as given in this statement. Appellant did not testify at trial.
After instructing the jury on the offense of murder charged in both indictments, the trial judge charged that the jury could find Copeland guilty of being an accessory after the fact of murder. The accessory instruction was not given as to appellant. Appellant's trial counsel objected to the accessory charge as to Copeland, claiming it amounted to a comment on the facts because it indicated that Copeland's statement was credible, while appellant's was not. The trial judge overruled this exception to the charge.
Article V, § 21 of the South Carolina Constitution provides that "[j]udges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law." Comments by a trial judge on such factual matters as the weight or sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the guilt of the accused or as to controverted facts are impermissible. State v. Smith, 288 S.C. 329, 342 S.E.2d 600 (1986).
Under the instructions given here, the jury could not have found appellant guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. LaCoste
...included of the offense charged in the indictment. State v. McFadden, 342 S.C. 629, 539 S.E.2d 387 (2000). See also State v. Roof, 298 S.C. 351, 380 S.E.2d 828 (1989)(defendant cannot be convicted of crime for which he is not indicted if it is not lesser included offense to that charged in ......
-
State v. Hammitt, 3220.
...the conspiracy. Our supreme court considered the effect of inconsistent jury charges in the setting of a joint trial in State v. Roof, 298 S.C. 351, 380 S.E.2d 828 (1989). In that case, each of two co-defendants being jointly tried for murder had given pre-trial statements admitting to disp......
-
State v. Good, 23872
...at 272, [citations omitted]. Our most recent case which addresses the jury instruction for accessory after the fact is State v. Roof, 298 S.C. 351, 380 S.E.2d 828 (1989). In reversing the murder conviction, we held that where the accessory instruction was given as to one defendant and not t......
-
State v. Good, 1818
...alleged in the indictment. State v. Hartley, --- S.C. ----, 414 S.E.2d 182 (Ct.App.1992); see State v. Roof, 298 S.C. 351, 354, 380 S.E.2d 828, 829-30 (1989) (Gregory, C.J., dissenting) (where each of two defendants testified he was not present when the victim was shot and killed inside a t......