State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 09 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 24403,24403 |
| Citation | 468 S.E.2d 656,321 S.C. 381 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Appellant, v. David C. WILLIAMS, P.J. Stephenson, & David A. Smith, Respondents. . Heard |
William H. Johnson, Steven S. McKenzie, Coffey, Chandler & Durant, of Manning; and Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for Respondents.
Respondents were indicted for second degree arson. Upon motion of defense counsel, the trial judge conducted a pre-trial hearing to determine whether sufficient evidence of corpus delicti existed to proceed to trial. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge dismissed the charges against all three Respondents. The State appeals that dismissal. 1 Respondents cross-appealed raising various other issues. By order dated October 5, 1995, this Court dismissed Respondents' cross-appeals because Respondents had not been sentenced. See State v. Miller, 289 S.C. 426, 346 S.E.2d 705 (1986) (). Therefore, the only issues before us arise out of the State's appeal. We reverse.
On March 30, 1992, David Smith's double-wide mobile home in Orangeburg County suffered damage from a fire. Investigators determined the fire started in the kitchen and was the result of cooking oil igniting after being heated in a "Fry Daddy" deep-fat fryer for at least an hour. Although no accelerant was discovered, investigators found evidence that the house had been "sterilized" prior to the fire. Outside the trailer, a trash can filled with children's toys was found. In a pump house adjacent to the trailer, personal items were discovered in two suitcases, one bearing an identification tag with David Smith's name on it. The items included photo albums, love notes, costume jewelry, and "sex toys". Moreover, the back door--a sliding glass door--was open three inches. One investigator opined that the door had been left open to provide an oxygen supply that would facilitate the burning of the fire.
Pre-trial, defense counsel moved the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing out of the presence of the jury for the purpose of determining whether sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti existed to proceed to trial. Counsel argued that "the government must establish the incendiary nature of the fire before it can get into the issue of statements or admissions". The trial court agreed and conducted a hearing at which two arson investigators testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court held that:
In order for the State to establish corpus delicti in this case, it must provide evidence that the burning was by a willful act and not a result of natural or accidental causes. There has been no testimony whatsoever to suggest that this fire was the result of a willful act; that any criminal agency was involved whatsoever; that these defendants had any connection whatsoever with the fire that resulted.... There was no testimony that would even support the theory of circumstantial evidence, wherein if employed it would have to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, except point toward the guilt of these defendants.
The trial court then dismissed the arson charges against all three Respondents.
The State argues that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing these charges. The State contends that it should have been permitted to present its case-in-chief after which the court could direct a verdict in favor of the Respondents if there was no evidence of corpus delicti. Alternatively, the State argues that even if the court did not err in dismissing the charges when he did, the judge still abused his discretion because, contrary to his holding, there was evidence of corpus delicti. We agree with these arguments.
A conviction cannot be had on the extra-judicial confessions of the defendant unless corroborated by proof aliunde of the corpus delicti. State v. Blocker, 205 S.C. 303 31 S.E.2d 908 (1944). In an arson case, the corpus delicti consists of (1) a burned building or other property, and (2) some criminal agency which caused the burning. Id. "In other words, the corpus delicti includes not only the fact of burning, but it must also appear that the burning was by the willful act of some person, and not as a result of a natural or accidental cause...." 205 S.C. at 306, 31 S.E.2d at 909 (emphasis in original). Moreover, if there is any evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti, then it is the duty of the trial court to pass that question on to the jury. State v. Blocker, supra.
We agree with the State that the trial judge abused his discretion by dismissing the charges without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Easley v. Portman
...In a criminal case, a conviction cannot be based solely on the defendant's uncorroborated extra-judicial confession. State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 381, 468 S.E.2d 656 (1996). The State must offer some proof of the corpus delicti of the particular offense for which the defendant is charged to ......
-
State v. Williams
...issue on appeal was unpreserved because the State did not oppose the hearing when Respondents moved that it be held. 321 S.C. 381, 385 n.3, 468 S.E.2d 656, 658 n.3 (1996).In moving for the hearing, Respondents asked the trial court to rule on the ... issue “prior to allowing the testimony t......
-
State v. Osborne
...the extra-judicial confessions of a defendant unless they are corroborated by proof aliunde3 of the corpus delicti.4 State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 381, 468 S.E.2d 656 (1996).5 See also State v. Brown, 103 S.C. 437, 442, 88 S.E. 21, 22 (1916) ("Before a defendant can be required to go into his......
- Clark v. State