State v. Shuler
Decision Date | 03 February 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 25591.,25591. |
Citation | 577 S.E.2d 438,353 S.C. 176 |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Charles O. SHULER, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Deputy Chief Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Derrick K. McFarland, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Walter M. Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of three counts of murder and first degree burglary. He was sentenced to death for the murders and life imprisonment for burglary. We affirm.
During his opening statement, defense counsel admitted appellant killed Linda Williams, her thirteen year old daughter Stacy, and Linda's mother, Dorothy Gates. He stated appellant had tried to cope with a complicated relationship but "snapped."
Evidence indicated appellant lived with Linda for two years. On September 3, 1999, Linda asked appellant to move out of her home. The following day, the police were summoned to Linda's home and a deputy told appellant to leave. Over the next day or two, appellant telephoned Linda's home numerous times and left threatening messages on her answering machine. In one message, he stated: . (italic in original).
On September 6th, a police officer was again dispatched to Linda's home. While listening to the answering machine tapes, the telephone rang. The officer answered the telephone; appellant stated, The officer told appellant not to call again and appellant responded, "I'll see her later."
Buster, Linda's nine-year-old son testified that around 7:00 p.m. on September 8, 1999, he saw appellant's car circle the block three times before driving into his yard. Appellant exited the vehicle carrying a "long gun" and "busted through" a front window of Buster's home. Buster testified he ran inside and heard appellant tell his mother "put the mother f___ phone down" and "I got you now, you bitch." While running to his neighbor's home, Buster heard a shot.
Over appellant's objection, the State played a redacted tape recording of several 911 calls.2 Screaming and three gunshots are heard on the first call. The 911 operator states, "we've been going to this house all weekend."3 During another call, a neighbor states her neighbor's child had come over and reported his mother's boyfriend was trying to kill his mother. On the last call, Stacy states five people have been shot by appellant. In response to a question from the operator, Stacy says she cannot feel below her waist and does not know where she has been shot.
Sheriff's Department officers arrived at Linda's home. Linda, Stacy, and Dorothy had been shot. Appellant had also been shot.4 Initially, Linda appeared to be alive. Stacy, wounded in the back, was moving on the living room floor; she inquired about her brother. She stated "Charles" had shot them. Dorothy was dead.
Appellant was lying on the floor in the hallway. An officer testified a shotgun lay beside him; appellant's finger was in the trigger release. Appellant stated, The officer took the shotgun from appellant and removed a live shell.5 Another officer stated appellant stated
A paramedic testified Stacy asked about her brother and begged not to let her die. She stated she was having trouble breathing. The paramedic estimated Stacy died within ten minutes of his arrival.
A detention center nurse testified, while arguing over who would receive medical treatment first, appellant told another inmate, "... I've killed three people and don't mind making it four." A detention center officer stated, on the one year anniversary of the shootings, appellant pointed to the newspaper picture of Dorothy and stated, either "I killed this witch" or "I killed this bitch" and referred to her as the devil. He stated he loved Linda and Stacy.
At the beginning of the three-day sentencing proceeding, appellant moved to exclude the admission of the unredacted 911 tape, arguing the tape's probative value did not outweigh its prejudicial impact. The trial judge overruled the objection, concluding the tape, while "extremely prejudicial," was relevant to the aggravating circumstance of torture.6
After the State played a portion of the 911 tape, Stacy's father identified the scream on the tape as belonging to his daughter. Thereafter, the State played the tape in its entirety. In addition to identifying appellant as the shooter, the tape contains several minutes of Stacy's conversation with the 911 dispatchers. Stacy's breathing is labored and she has difficulty speaking. Several times, Stacy states "I'm hurting" and "please hurry." Her pain and suffering are evident.
Appellant offered several witnesses in mitigation. An expert in clinical social work testified appellant lacked socialization skills, was emotionally immature, dependent on relationships, and that chronic alcohol problems ran in his family. An expert in psychopharmacology testified appellant suffered from chronic depression, anxiety, and alcohol dependency. He suggested alcohol usage may have caused some brain damage. An expert in neurology testified appellant's MRI revealed a loss of brain tissue.
An expert in psychiatry diagnosed appellant with depression, possible post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of the shootings, and possible malingering. An expert in forensic psychiatry diagnosed appellant with "adjustment disorder with depressed mood" as a result of the shootings.
Detention center witnesses testified appellant had not caused any problems in jail while awaiting trial. An expert in the field of prisons and corrections testified appellant could be confined in a correctional environment for the rest of his life without harm to himself or others.
Appellant did not testify. He did not make a final statement to the jury.7
During closing argument, the solicitor played a portion of the 911 tape (apparently the beginning of the tape with screaming and gunshots). He later played all of the tape.
Appellant argues the trial judge erred by allowing the solicitor to "exploit" that portion of the 911 tape which depicts Stacy's pain and suffering. We disagree.
Relevant evidence is defined as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Rule 401, SCRE. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Rule 403, SCRE. The relevance, materiality, and admissibility of evidence are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Rosemond, 335 S.C. 593, 518 S.E.2d 588 (1999).
The purpose of the sentencing phase in a capital trial is to direct the jury's attention to the specific circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of the offender. State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637, 552 S.E.2d 745 (2001). Evidence which would ordinarily be inadmissible in the guilt phase of trial may be introduced during the penalty phase. State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E.2d 180 (1986), cert. denied 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct. 1592, 94 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987). During the sentencing phase, the trial judge may permit the introduction of additional evidence of aggravation in order to aid the jury in determining whether to recommend a death sentence. Id.
cert. denied, 516 U.S. 856, 116 S.Ct. 160, 133...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Camacho
...audiotape was admitted as full exhibit), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1227, 123 S.Ct. 1266, 154 L.Ed.2d 1089 (2003); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176, 186, 577 S.E.2d 438 (2003) (playing portion of 911 audiotape and entire audiotape during closing not denial of due process). The defendant fails to e......
-
State v. Murray
...after examining the entire record, this Court determines that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176, 577 S.E.2d 438, 444 (2003) ("While the State may not comment on the defendant's right to remain silent, an improper reference is subject to harml......
-
State v. Northcutt, 26271.
...responsibility upon jurors and plays to their fear, "injects an arbitrary factor" into the sentencing decision. State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176, 577 S.E.2d 438 (2003). I cannot agree with the majority that it was a "permissible argument ... based on the record and reasonable inferences from i......
-
Allen v. Stephan
...Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976); Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982); State v. Shuler, 577 S.E.2d 438 (S.C. 2003)). The Supreme Court of South Carolina found as follows:It is clear from reading the entirety of the trial court's sentencing order......