The State v. Burgess

Decision Date28 January 2011
Docket NumberNo. 4765.,4765.
Citation391 S.C. 15,703 S.E.2d 512
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent,v.Darrell BURGESS, Appellant.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.FEW, C.J.

Darrell Burgess was convicted of the drug-related murders of David Slice and Kim Fauscette. The trial judge sentenced Burgess to two life sentences for the murders, and five years for possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Burgess has raised two issues on appeal. First, he challenges the trial judge's decision not to remove a juror who realized after jury selection that the brother of Slice's estranged wife worked for him. Second, he argues the judge violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense by excluding evidence of third party guilt. We affirm.

I. Facts

Slice and Fauscette lived together in a “crack house” in Gaston with at least one other person. During the evening of September 5, 2005, and continuing into the following morning, Slice, Fauscette and a crack dealer named James Johnson had been talking, watching television, drinking alcohol and smoking crack in the mobile home. Before dawn on September 5, Burgess arrived unexpectedly and Fauscette allowed him inside. Burgess explained that he wrecked his car and was running from the police. Burgess did not mention that Michael Wise drove him to his house after the wreck so Burgess could get his gun and Wise was waiting outside. Burgess, Slice, Fauscette and Johnson sat around for ten or fifteen minutes while Burgess waited for Johnson to leave. Eventually, Burgess stood up and shot Slice three times and Fauscette twice, killing them both. Johnson ran away when Burgess's gun emptied. Burgess fled the scene with Wise.

II. The Decision not to Remove the Juror

After the jury was selected but before opening statements, a member of the jury notified the deputy clerk of court that he recognized a lady in the audience.” 1 The judge brought the juror into the courtroom to question him. The juror explained that after jury selection he recognized a woman in the courtroom whom he believed to be Georgette Slice. Georgette, who had not been introduced to the jury panel during voir dire, was the estranged wife of David Slice, and the sister of a man the juror supervised at work. The judge asked the juror if he could still be a fair and impartial juror to both the State and the defense, to which the juror responded “yes, sir.” Outside of the juror's presence, the judge asked if either side wanted additional voir dire. Burgess requested that the juror be asked whether he discussed the situation with any other members of the jury, and that the juror be removed for cause. After returning to the courtroom, the juror testified he had not discussed it with anyone in the jury room. He again testified he could be fair and impartial to both sides. The juror also testified he had not heard anything about the case and did not even know the murders occurred. Neither side requested further voir dire.

We find no error in the judge's decision not to remove the juror. First, the fact that a juror has some relationship with the victim does not automatically require the trial judge to remove the juror. See State v. Jones, 298 S.C. 118, 121, 378 S.E.2d 594, 596 (1989) (“The mere fact that a person is a friend or acquaintance of the deceased does not render him incompetent as a juror.”); State v. Wells, 249 S.C. 249, 259–60, 153 S.E.2d 904, 909–10 (1967) (affirming qualification of a juror who directly employed victim a year or more prior to trial); State v. Hilton, 87 S.C. 434, 439, 69 S.E. 1077, 1078 (1910) (“There is no rule of the common law, nor is there a statute disqualifying a juror on account of his relationship to a witness, either by affinity or consanguinity, within any degree.”). Second, the juror did not conceal any information requested during voir dire.2 Finally, the judge acted within his discretion in finding the juror could be fair and impartial. See State v. Mercer, 381 S.C. 149, 158, 672 S.E.2d 556, 560–61 (2009) (describing the trial judge's broad discretion to determine whether a juror is qualified); State v. Bell, 374 S.C. 136, 147, 646 S.E.2d 888, 894 (Ct.App.2007) (“A decision on whether to dismiss a juror and replace her with an alternate is within the sound discretion of the trial court....”).

Burgess argues, however, that the juror should have been excused based on the supreme court's reasoning in State v. Stone, 350 S.C. 442, 567 S.E.2d 244 (2002). We believe Burgess misinterprets the opinion. In Stone, the State called the defendant's aunt to testify during the penalty phase of a capital trial. 350 S.C. at 448, 567 S.E.2d at 247. One of the jurors realized she knew the aunt, and the trial judge granted the State's request to remove the juror. Id. On appeal, the supreme court quoted its decision in State v. Woods:

When a juror conceals information inquired into during voir dire, a new trial is required only when the court finds the juror intentionally concealed the information, and that the information concealed would have supported a challenge for cause or would have been a material factor in the use of the party's peremptory challenges.

350 S.C. at 448, 567 S.E.2d at 247 (emphasis added) (quoting State v. Woods, 345 S.C. 583, 587–88, 550 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001)). Calling Woods “instructive,” the Stone court held the removal of the juror was error because neither of the criteria listed in Woods existed. 350 S.C. at 448–49, 567 S.E.2d at 247–48. First, the court stated [i]t is patent here that [the juror's] failure to disclose her acquaintance with [the witness] was innocent.” 350 S.C. at 448, 567 S.E.2d at 247. Second, the court stated we find her scant acquaintance would neither have supported a challenge for cause nor would it have been a material factor in the state's exercise of its peremptory challenges.” 350 S.C. at 448, 567 S.E.2d at 247–48. However, either of those findings would have independently rendered the trial judge's removal of the Stone juror erroneous.

When a party contends a juror should be removed for failure to disclose information during voir dire, Stone requires the trial judge to consider the two criteria from Woods. If the judge finds both of the Woods criteria exist, the judge must remove the juror. However, if either of the criteria is absent, the judge may not remove the juror on that basis. Here, we need only look to the absence of the first criterion to affirm. As in Stone, this juror's failure to disclose the information was innocent. Thus the removal of the juror would have been error. See Smith v. State, 375 S.C. 507, 518, 654 S.E.2d 523, 529 (2007) (“Where a juror, without justification, fails to disclose a relationship, it may be inferred ... that the juror is not impartial. On the other hand, where the failure to disclose is innocent, no such inference may be drawn.” (quoting Woods, 345 S.C. at 587–88, 550 S.E.2d at 284)).

Finally, Burgess argues the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard in deciding not to remove the juror. In making this argument, Burgess focuses on one comment made by the judge immediately after he denied the motion to remove the juror: “I think I have to take jurors at their word. I can't second guess that.... I can't sit up here and decide that jurors won't follow the law.” The State contends the argument is not preserved for appellate review. We agree.

The rules of issue preservation impose on counsel a duty to challenge a statement of law made by the trial judge which counsel believes to be erroneous.

A litigant must object to inadequate ... conclusions of law in order to give the trial court an opportunity to correct them.... While a party has the right to assume that the trial court knows and will properly apply the law, this does not excuse the failure to seek correction of an error once the complaining party becomes aware of it.

89 C.J.S. Trial § 1134 (2001). See also I'On, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant, 338 S.C. 406, 422, 526 S.E.2d 716, 724 (2000) (“The losing party must first try to convince the lower court it has ruled wrongly....”). Burgess's failure to challenge the judge's comment and seek clarification of the basis of his ruling leaves the issue unpreserved for two reasons.

First, we cannot determine the correct context in which to interpret the comment. Burgess argues the judge was stating the legal standard he had used in deciding not to remove the juror. The State argues, however, the comment simply indicates the judge expected the jurors to follow his instructions on the law. See U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 740, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (noting “the almost invariable assumption of the law that jurors follow their instructions”) (quoting Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200, 206, 107 S.Ct. 1702, 95 L.Ed.2d 176 (1987)). Second, even if he was addressing the standard for removing the juror, we cannot determine that he applied the wrong standard. The judge made the comment immediately after he ruled. In the ruling itself, however, he stated: “I would have to deny your motion based on State v. Elmore. While the comment cited by Burgess would indicate the judge used an incorrect standard, the reference to Elmore indicates he used the correct standard.3

If Burgess had sought correction of the alleged error at trial, we would be able to determine which issue the trial judge was addressing, and whether he was correct. Because we cannot determine either, the issue is not preserved.

III. Third Party Guilt and the Right to Present a Complete Defense

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • State v. Webster
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 2014
    ... ... Burgess, 703 S.E.2d 512, 514 (S.C.Ct.App.2010) ([T]he fact that a juror has some relationship with the victim does not automatically require the trial judge to remove the juror.). Generally speaking, a guilty verdict will not be overturned in the absence of some factual showing, and not mere speculation, ... ...
  • Connelly v. Main St. Am. Grp.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 12, 2020
    ... ... State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 358 S.C. 157, 166, 594 S.E.2d 511, 516 (Ct. App. 2004). The "determination of coverage under an insurance policy" is an ... ...
  • State v. Coaxum
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 8, 2014
    ... ... Here, we need only look to the absence of the first criterion to affirm. As in Stone, this juror's failure to disclose the information was innocent. Thus, the removal of the juror would have been error. 764 S.E.2d 247State v. Burgess, 391 S.C. 15, 1920, 703 S.E.2d 512, 51415 (Ct.App.2010) (bold emphasis added) (citations omitted).The analysis in Burgess is the same analysis used by the court of appeals in Respondent's case; however, we find this analysis to be an improper reading of our prior case law, as it does not consider ... ...
  • Graves v. Horry–georgetown Technical Coll.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2011
    ... ... As Procurement Manager, Graves ensured the College's purchases complied with the state-issued Procurement Code and prepared a brochure to assist College employees in understanding the Procurement Code's requirements.In 2004, the College ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A Qualified Right to Remain Silent
    • United States
    • South Carolina Bar South Carolina Lawyer No. 24-4, January 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...45 C.ER. §§ 164.102 et seq (2011). [II] 45 C.ER. §§ 164.302 et seq (2011). [IV] 45 C.ER. §§ 164.500 et seq (2011). [V]State v. Burgess, 391 S.C. 15, 703 S.E.2d 512 (Ct.App. 2010). [VI] Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987). [VII]45 C.ER. § 160.103 (2011). [viii] 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(f)......

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