State v. Wilder, 23535
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 306 S.C. 535,413 S.E.2d 323 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23535,23535 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James WILDER, Appellant. . Heard |
Page 323
v.
James WILDER, Appellant.
Decided Dec. 16, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1992.
Assistant Appellate Defender Lesley M. Coggiola, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen., Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Charles Molony Condon, Charleston, for respondent.
CHANDLER, Justice:
[306 S.C. 536] Appellant James Wilder (Wilder) appeals his conviction for forgery. We affirm.
Wilder was initially arrested by the Charleston County police on five counts of forgery. At the bond hearing, he invoked his sixth amendment right to counsel and the public defender was appointed to represent him. Bond was set at $5,000 per charge and, because Wilder could not pay this amount, he was returned to jail.
Nine days later, a detective with the Charleston City Police Department transported Wilder from the county jail to the city jail for questioning about a separate incident of forgery which occurred on June 6, 1990. After being properly advised, Wilder waived his Miranda 1 rights, and confessed to the June 6 forgery. His statement was admitted over objection.
At trial, Wilder, who is black, objected to the State's use of its peremptory challenges to strike four blacks from the venire. The Solicitor struck two of the blacks on the ground they had criminal records; the other two were struck because they reported late for jury duty. He explained: "Just out of respect for the Court proceedings, if they are going to be late I just assume [sic] they not participate on the jury."
Page 324
Wilder's counsel then noted that a white woman, the jury forelady, was seated even though she also reported late. The Solicitor responded that the forelady "overcame that [lateness] by expressing her intense desire to serve." 2 The trial judge accepted this explanation and held the strike to be racially neutral.
(1) Was Wilder's statement admissible?
(2) Did the State's use of peremptory strikes violate Batson v. Kentucky ? 3
[306 S.C. 537] DISCUSSION
A. Wilder's Statement
Wilder contends that, because he had invoked his right to counsel at the bond hearing on the initial five counts of forgery, his uncounseled statement taken in connection with the June 6 forgery should have been suppressed. We disagree.
This issue was recently addressed by the United States Supreme Court in McNeil v. Wisconsin, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991). In McNeil, the defendant, arrested for armed robbery, invoked his sixth amendment right to counsel during his bail hearing. Subsequently, he was questioned concerning a murder, not related to the armed robbery. After being advised of his Miranda rights, he gave a full account of his involvement in the murder.
Like Wilder, McNeil argued his statement should have been suppressed, in that "his courtroom appearance with an attorney for the [first] crime constituted an invocation of the Miranda right to counsel, and that any subsequent waiver of that right during police-initiated questioning regarding any offense was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gill, 2379
...no evidence was presented showing that the charges against the Page 416 white juror had been handled by that solicitor); State v. Wilder, 306 S.C. 535, 413 S.E.2d 323 (1991) (no Batson violation where solicitor excused two black jurors because they were late but sat a white juror who was al......
-
State v. Edwards, 4261.
...State is allowed to consider tone, demeanor, facial expression, and any other race-neutral factors when striking jurors); State v. Wilder, 306 S.C. 535, 413 S.E.2d 323 (1991) (two black males struck because they were late); State v. Wright, 304 S.C. 529, 405 S.E.2d 825 (1991) (struck juror ......
-
State v. Cochran, 4116.
...State is allowed to consider tone, demeanor, facial expression, and any other race-neutral factors when striking jurors); State v. Wilder, 306 S.C. 535, 413 S.E.2d 323 (1991) (two black males struck because they were late); State v. Wright, 304 S.C. 529, 405 S.E.2d 825 (1991) (stricken juro......
-
State v. Easler, 2512
...420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). 1 Counsel may strike venire persons based on their demeanor and disposition. State v. Wilder, 306 S.C. 535, 413 S.E.2d 323...