State v. Wells

• Citation: 426 S.E.2d 814
• Decision Date: 14 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. 1933,1933
• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Louis WELLS, Appellant. . Heard

Page 814

426 S.E.2d 814

The STATE, Respondent, v. Louis WELLS, Appellant.

No. 1933.

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 14, 1992.

Decided Dec. 29, 1992.

Asst. Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for respondent.

CURETON, Judge:

The appellant, Louis Wells, was convicted of murder, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He appeals various evidentiary rulings and the jury charge. We affirm.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, Wells went to the home of Eunice Hart and Robert Whitaker (victim) during the early morning hours of November 10, 1990. Wells was well known to Hart. She allowed him to come inside the house and he asked her for a pint of wine. She did not have any wine but asked Wells for some money he owed her. At that point, Wells drew a knife and assaulted her. She called for the victim, who was asleep in the bedroom. She then fled from the house into the yard. Wells pursued her outside. The victim tried to come to the aid of Hart but Wells stabbed him numerous times. Wells further assaulted Hart and then ran away. The victim died at the scene from multiple stab wounds. A neighbor witnessed the events from her window but could not identify Wells because it was dark.

After the police were called, Hart identified Wells as her attacker and the police went to Wells' home. Wells denied involvement in the stabbings. He told the police he had visited two clubs that night but was at home and asleep when the attacks occurred. He consented to a search of his home. Clothing described by Hart was seized from his bedroom. Wells admitted wearing the clothes that night.

I.

Wells argues the court erred in allowing the investigating officer to testify concerning a post arrest oral statement he made two days after the incident. The trial court held an in camera hearing and ruled the oral statement was voluntarily made pursuant to a Miranda warning and could be admitted although Wells had refused to sign a written statement at the time. The written statement was not admitted. We find no error.

During the in camera hearing, the investigating officer testified he had advised Wells of his Miranda rights and Wells had indicated he understood them, after which Wells told the officer he had been to two clubs that night. This statement was essentially the same as that he made on the night of the arrest. ¹ Wells did not sign a written statement. Wells also testified during the in camera hearing he was advised of and understood his Miranda rights and was not threatened or coerced when he made the statement.

The trial court ruled the oral statement was admissible. The test for admissibility of a statement is voluntariness. State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54, 56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988). The trial judge's determination of the voluntariness of the statement must be based upon the totality of the circumstances and may not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990).

Wells' refusal to sign a written statement is but one of the factors to consider in determining whether the statement was voluntary. Given Wells' testimony that he understood his rights and gave the oral statement of his own free will without threat or coercion, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the admission of the statement.

II.

Wells next contends the court erred in allowing testimony by the arresting officer in regards to a crack pipe and a towel found by the police during the search of his home. We find no error.

Wells gave the police permission to search when they came to his home. He does not contest his grant of permission on appeal. The crack pipe was found in the pocket of a pair of pants he admitted wearing that night. According to the police, the pants were wet and were found in a dresser drawer under clean clothes. The towel was found in the kitchen and was seized by the police because it appeared to have blood stains on it. However, the police admitted at trial there was no evidence of blood on the towel.

Wells argues the court erred in allowing the admission of testimony regarding the crack pipe and towel because they were not connected to the assaults and had no bearing on the identity of the perpetrator. He argues the crack pipe may have allowed the jurors to impermissibly consider whether he had a propensity to engage in criminal activities.

We find no merit to these contentions. Wells could not have been prejudiced by the admission of the crack pipe because he readily admitted at trial he was "good and high" after consuming twelve beers and smoking two pieces of crack cocaine the night of the murder. State v. Robinson, 305 S.C. 469, 476, 409 S.E.2d 404, 409 (1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1477, 117 L.Ed.2d 620 (1992) (although letter should have been suppressed, defendant was not prejudiced, because victim testified to same effect as letter on direct examination). Likewise, the introduction of the towel seized from Wells' home cannot be considered prejudicial error where there was nothing about the towel that incriminated Wells.

III.

During trial, Wells' attorney objected when the solicitor asked him if he knew of any reason why Hart would come into the courtroom and accuse him of the murder. The trial judge overruled the objection. We discern no reversible error. While it is improper for the solicitor to "ask whether or not another witness has told the truth, because to do so would force such witness to attack the veracity of the other witness." State v. Outen, 237 S.C. 514, 527, 118 S.E.2d 175, 181 (1961), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 977, 81 S.Ct. 1948, 6 L.Ed.2d 1266 (1961), Outen does not apply here. Taken in proper context, we cannot say the solicitor sought to force Wells to attack the veracity of Hart. The focus of the solicitor's questioning was to uncover any bias by Hart, not to encourage Wells to state Hart was lying. Finally, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we find no prejudice in the admission beyond a reasonable doubt. Thrift v. State, 302 S.C. 535, 538, 397 S.E.2d 523, 525 (1990).

IV.

During a consensual search of Wells' residence, the clothing he wore on the night of the killing was seized. The seizing officer testified he placed the clothes in a plastic bag and delivered the bag to a SLED agent. The SLED agent took the bag to SLED's central evidence holding room in Columbia. The agent picked the bag up from the holding room but could not testify to the handling of the bag while it was there. Appellant made a general objection to the chain of custody. We find no error. The admission of evidence is discretionary with the trial judge. State v. Williams, 297 S.C. 290, 293, 376 S.E.2d 773, 774 (1989). The record does not reflect the results of any tests performed by SLED so as to make chain of custody issues important to the validity of the test results. Wells identified the clothes as his at trial. Any defects in the chain of custody would only go to the weight or credibility of the evidence, not to its admissibility. Additionally, no blood from Hart or the victim was found on the clothes. State v. Kahan, 268 S.C. 240, 244, 233 S.E.2d 293, 294 (1977). We find no prejudicial error.

The court also admitted into evidence the blood-stained clothing of the victim. Appellant objected to the admission based on the chain of custody. The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on the victim testified he removed the victim's clothes and sealed them in a plastic container. He delivered the sealed container to a representative of the sheriff's department. Officer Grayson from the sheriff's department testified he picked the container up from the autopsy office, took it to SLED's evidence room, where a serologist examined the clothes, and returned the container to the evidence room. Grayson picked the clothes up from the evidence room and maintained custody and control until trial. He further testified the plastic container appeared to be the same container that was present in the courtroom at trial.

Wells objected to admission of the clothes on the ground...