State v. Williams, 19432

• Citation: 258 S.C. 482,189 S.E.2d 299
• Decision Date: 30 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 19432,19432
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Alonzo WILLIAMS, alias Jimmie Smith, Appellant.

Page 299

189 S.E.2d 299

258 S.C. 482

The STATE, Respondent, v. Alonzo WILLIAMS, alias Jimmie Smith, Appellant.

No. 19432.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

May 30, 1972.

H. F. Partee and Grover S. Parnell, Jr., Greenville, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Asst. Atty. Gen. Emmet H. Clair, Columbia, and Sol. Thomas W. Greene, Greenville, for respondent.

BUSSEY, Justice:

Defendant-appellant Williams was convicted of the offenses of rape and armed robbery at the January 1971 term of the General Sessions Court for Greenville County. Upon trial, he was represented by retained counsel but because of subsequent indigency, his appeal has been perfected by the Public Defender for Greenville County.

All questions on this appeal arise out of identification testimony. Ruby Hunt, the victim of the rape, and Roosevelt Hunt, the victim of the robbery, in the course of testifying identified the defendant as the perpetrator of the crimes. During the cross-examination of Ruby Hunt, defense counsel elicited from her the fact that she had identified the defendant upon his having been shown to her through a one-way mirror while he was sitting alone in a room at police headquarters. Thereupon the following occurred:

'Defense Counsel: Your Honor, I've got a matter I wish to take up at this time with the court.

'Court: Go ahead and take the testimony. We'll let the record show that you took it up at this time.'

During the cross-examination of Roosevelt Hunt, defense counsel elicited from this witness that he had seen and identified the defendant in a lineup at police headquarters, on March 23, 1970, approximately one month after the offense; that three other persons were in the lineup with the defendant and that no lawyer was present. The State offered no evidence as to the out of court confrontations or the circumstances surrounding the same. At the conclusion of the State's case, defense counsel moved to strike the in-court identifications of both of these witnesses on the ground, in essence, that they were tainted by unlawful prior confrontations. In fairness to the trial judge, the motion of defense counsel should have been much more explicit, but from the colloquy between counsel and the judge we think the issue was sufficiently raised. In any event, His Honor overruled the motion without going fully into whether or not there had, in fact, been improper prior confrontations, and whether, in fact, either or both of the in-court identifications were perchance the tainted product of any such unlawful confrontation.

The disposition of this appeal is controlled by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the cases of United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178; and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199. See also the North Carolina decisions, subsequent to Wade, of State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E.2d 174; State v. Smith, 278 N.C. 476, 180 S.E.2d 7; and State v. Harris, 279 N.C. 177, 181 S.E.2d 420. The cited United States Supreme Court decisions clearly require a remand of this cause for further proceedings and, such being the case, we refrain from discussing the evidence in detail.

There is evidence to the effect that the defendant was identified by both of the Hunts in out of court confrontations. Under...