State v. Thompson, No. 21596

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtHARWELL; LEWIS
Citation278 S.C. 1,292 S.E.2d 581
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Albert "Bo" THOMPSON, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 21596
Decision Date07 January 1982

Page 581

292 S.E.2d 581
278 S.C. 1
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Albert "Bo" THOMPSON, Appellant.
No. 21596.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jan. 7, 1982.

Page 583

[278 S.C. 4] Chief Atty. John L. Sweeny, of S. C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, and Thomas W. Greene and Jerry L. Taylor, Greenville, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Lindy P. Funkhouser and Senior Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol. William W. Wilkins, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.

HARWELL, Justice:

Appellant Albert "Bo" Thompson was tried by a jury in Greenville County and convicted of armed robbery and murder. Upon recommendation of the jury, he was sentenced to death. This case consolidates Thompson's direct appeal and mandatory review of the death sentence.

On July 10, 1978, George Toubia was shot and killed during the armed robbery of his small grocery store near Simpsonville, South Carolina. Appellant Thompson and two accomplices were arrested for the crimes. One of the accomplices pled guilty to accessory to murder and armed robbery, and the other pled guilty to murder and armed robbery.

[278 S.C. 5] Appellant asserts his convictions should be reversed and that he should be allowed to enter a guilty plea in return for a life sentence because of pretrial plea negotiations. Appellant sought an injunction against the State to prevent it from seeking the death penalty; the motion was denied. Appellant argues he had an enforceable agreement with the State for a sentence of life imprisonment. The State asserts that no agreement was ever reached; that in response to appellant's proposal to plead guilty, the solicitor advised appellant's counsel that he would consider a guilty plea only upon a firm commitment by the accused and that he would discuss the matter with the victim's family before he reached a final decision.

Page 584

Appellant's attempt to create a firm commitment out of plea negotiations has no merit. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), states that "fundamental fairness" forbids the State from seeking the death penalty after plea negotiations. However, Santobello merely stands for the proposition that when an accused pleads guilty upon the promise of a prosecutor, the agreement must be fulfilled. Here, there was no promise made by the solicitor; there were merely negotiations.

Relying on Cooper v. United States, 594 F.2d 12 (4th Cir. 1979), appellant argues that even though an express contract had not been reached, his expectations reasonably formed in reliance upon the honor of the government required that the State be enjoined from seeking the death penalty. In Cooper, a firmly advanced proposal had been made to the defendant by an Assistant U. S. Attorney but was withdrawn when the proposal was disapproved by the U. S. Attorney. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals confined its holding as narrowly as possible to cases where the proposal was specific, unambiguous and made without any reservation. Any plea negotiations between appellant and the State were not specific or unambiguous; there were also two reservations: a firm commitment from the accused and a discussion with the victim's family.

Appellant excepts to the application of the Death Penalty Statute to his case. He asserts that S.C.Code Ann. 16-3-20(C) provides no guidelines for the weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. He also [278 S.C. 6] argues that the scope of review of death penalty cases is too narrow (comparing only prior capital cases tried under the present death penalty statute) and therefore unconstitutional. Appellant contends that he has a right to access to the cases with which the Supreme Court compares each death sentence; however, Section 16-3-25 of the Code does not provide for the right. Next, he argues that the death penalty constitutes disproportionate punishment in his case. This argument is without merit. Upon entering Mr. Toubia's store to rob him, appellant immediately shot him once. Before leaving the store with the fruits of the crime, appellant shot him again. 1 Appellant also contends that the death penalty was applied arbitrarily and capriciously because it was not sought for his two accomplices. These issues were decided adversely to appellant in State v. Linder, 278 S.E.2d 335 (S.C.1980) and State v. Shaw, 273 S.C. 194, 255 S.E.2d 799, cert. denied 444 U.S. 957, 100 S.Ct. 437, 62 L.Ed.2d 329 (1979), petition for rehearing denied 444 U.S. 1027, 100 S.Ct. 694, 62 L.Ed.2d 662 (1980), and cert. denied 444 U.S. 1026, 100 S.Ct. 690, 62 L.Ed.2d 660, petition for rehearing denied 444 U.S. 1104, 100 S.Ct. 1073, 62 L.Ed.2d 791 (1980).

Next appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to strike language in the murder indictment referring to armed robbery as the aggravating circumstance. However, the trial judge found that stating the aggravating circumstance in the indictment merely alleged the circumstances making the murder subject to capital punishment. Appellant alleges that the crime stated in the indictment, murder committed while in the commission of robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, is no longer a crime in [278 S.C. 7] South Carolina because the 1974 version of Section 16-3-20 was declared unconstitutional; therefore, the indictment was improper. It was not prejudicial to inform the appellant of the aggravating circumstance which the State sought to prove. Appellant also argues that the indictment was improper for stating the aggravating circumstance because it, in effect,

Page 585

charged felony murder; thus the underlying felony (armed robbery) merged with the felony murder and could not be submitted to the jury as an aggravating circumstance in the sentencing phase of the trial. However, appellant concedes that the trial judge did not charge the felony murder rule. In addition, South Carolina adheres to the common law rule of murder and makes no distinction between murder and felony murder. State v. Judge, 208 S.C. 497, 38 S.E.2d 715 (1946). Therefore, a statutory aggravating circumstance would remain a circumstance of the murder in a death penalty case regardless of whether the crime charged is murder or felony murder. There was no error in the indictment.

Appellant's next argument is that the trial judge erred in not charging the jury on involuntary manslaughter and felony murder. We disagree. The appellant can claim no prejudice by the failure of the court to charge the felony-murder doctrine which raises a presumption of malice on the part of the appellant. A charge of involuntary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 practice notes
  • State v. Copeland, No. 21808
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 10, 1982
    ...review," mandated by § 16-3-25(C) of the Code. (1977 Act No. 177, section 2, eff. June 8, 1977.) State v. Thompson, S.C., 292 S.E.2d 581, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed.2d 458 (1982); State v. Butler, supra; State v. Gilbert *; State v. Hyman, supra; State v. Shaw, 273 ......
  • Engberg v. State, No. 83-29
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 27, 1984
    ...(1982), reh. denied 459 U.S. 1189, 103 S.Ct. 839, 74 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1983) (shotgun murder of service station attendant); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 581 (1982) (shooting death of grocery store proprietor); Brewer v. State, Ind., 417 N.E.2d 889 (1981), cert. denied 458 U.S. 1122......
  • State v. Arrowood, No. 4304.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 17, 2007
    ...because a defendant reveals otherwise undiscoverable facts in the hope of securing a favorable plea agreement. Id.; State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 581 (1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed.2d 458 (1982) (holding solicitor's plea negotiations to consider life......
  • State v. Miller, No. 4307.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 19, 2007
    ...because a defendant reveals otherwise undiscoverable facts in the hope of securing a favorable plea agreement. Id.; State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 581 (1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed.2d 458 (1982) (holding solicitor's plea negotiations to consider life......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
58 cases
  • State v. Copeland, No. 21808
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • November 10, 1982
    ...review," mandated by § 16-3-25(C) of the Code. (1977 Act No. 177, section 2, eff. June 8, 1977.) State v. Thompson, S.C., 292 S.E.2d 581, cert. denied, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed.2d 458 (1982); State v. Butler, supra; State v. Gilbert *; State v. Hyman, supra; State v. Shaw, 273 ......
  • Engberg v. State, No. 83-29
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 27, 1984
    ...(1982), reh. denied 459 U.S. 1189, 103 S.Ct. 839, 74 L.Ed.2d 1031 (1983) (shotgun murder of service station attendant); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 581 (1982) (shooting death of grocery store proprietor); Brewer v. State, Ind., 417 N.E.2d 889 (1981), cert. denied 458 U.S. 1122......
  • State v. Arrowood, No. 4304.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 17, 2007
    ...because a defendant reveals otherwise undiscoverable facts in the hope of securing a favorable plea agreement. Id.; State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 581 (1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed.2d 458 (1982) (holding solicitor's plea negotiations to consider life......
  • State v. Miller, No. 4307.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • October 19, 2007
    ...because a defendant reveals otherwise undiscoverable facts in the hope of securing a favorable plea agreement. Id.; State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 292 S.E.2d 581 (1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 938, 102 S.Ct. 1996, 72 L.Ed.2d 458 (1982) (holding solicitor's plea negotiations to consider life......
  • 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