Preview:

40S State v. Bone No. 281A99 (Filed 17 August 2001) 1.Search and Seizure--defendant's shoes--confession--plain view doctrine--exigent circumstances--search incident to lawful arrest Although the trial court improperly concluded a magistrate had probable cause to issue a search warrant to seize defendant's shoes in a first-degree burglary and capital first-degree murder trial, other proper grounds were available to uphold the seizure including: (1) the plain view doctrine coupled with exigent circumstances when defendant could discard or disfigure the shoes once he had knowledge of the detective's interest in the shoes; and (2) the search was incident to a lawful arrest when the detective had probable cause to arrest defendant based on an anonymous tip that the detective was able to corroborate, the detective independently had reason to believe the murderer wore "Chuck Taylor" shoes, and the detective found defendant wearing this type of shoe when he went to speak with him. 2.Confessions and Incriminating Statements--voluntariness--alleged misstatements and false promise by detective The trial court did not err in a first-degree burglary and capital first-degree murder trial by denying defendant's motion to suppress his confession even though defendant contends it was involuntary when it was induced by alleged misstatements and a false promise by a detective, because: (1) the detective's representations that shoe prints were just like fingerprints and that defendant's shoes matched those impressions found at the murder scene were exaggerations, but not outright fabrications; (2) although the detective made no promises to defendant in exchange for a confession during defendant's initial interview but told defendant he might receive a lesser sentence if he confessed, the detective made no commitment and defendant made no statement in response to this suggestion; and (3) defendant asked to speak to an officer only after he was formally arrested where he was given his Miranda rights and signed a written waiver. 3.Sentencing--capital--consideration of mitigating circumstances--erroneous instruction-harmless error Any error by the trial court during a capital sentencing proceeding by its instruction in Issue Three that each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance that the "jury" rather than "juror" determined to exist by a preponderance of the evidence in Issue Two did not preclude an individual juror from considering mitigating evidence that such juror alone found in Issue Two and was harmless where the jury was clearly instructed for each of the mitigating circumstances submitted in Issue Two that only one or more of the jurors was required to find that the mitigating circumstance existed and that it was deemed mitigating. 4.Sentencing--capital--mitigating circumstances--no significant history of prior criminal activity The trial court did not commit prejudicial error during a capital sentencing proceeding by submitting to the jury the N.C.G.S.

Download 281a99-9.pdf

South Carolina Law