From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Middleton

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 29, 1986
288 S.C. 21 (S.C. 1986)

Summary

holding the defendant's charges failed to meet the requirements for consolidation because "the crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances, and required different evidence for proof"

Summary of this case from Tyler v. State

Opinion

22454

Heard January 6, 1986.

Decided January 29, 1986.

David I. Bruck, Columbia, Public Defender Mark L. Archer and James A. Stuckey, Jr., Charleston, and South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant. Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Carlisle Roberts, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. Charles M. Condon, Charleston, for respondent.


Heard Jan. 6, 1986.

Decided Jan. 29, 1986.


Appellant Frank Middleton, Jr., was indicted separately for two counts of murder and criminal sexual conduct, and one count of attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault, and aggravated assault and battery. Over appellant's objection, the cases were consolidated for trial. A jury found Middleton guilty of all charges, and he was sentenced to death. This appeal followed. We reverse and remand for new trials.

Appellant's first contention is the trial judge erred in consolidating the charges for trial. We agree.

Middleton escaped from a prison work detail near Goose Creek on June 8, 1984. According to the charges, he raped and murdered Janell Garner on June 9th, and Shirley Mae Mack on June 10th. The victims were asphyxiated, and their bodies were mutilated. The body of Shirley Mae Mack was burned. It was further alleged that appellant attempted to rob Hiott Grocery Store, assaulting two employees, on June 11th.

The State argues consolidation was justified, alleging all the crimes were part of a crime spree. See State v. Woomer, 276 S.C. 258, 277 S.E.2d 696 (1981). In support of this contention, the State notes the similarity of the murders, and the fact the crimes were committed within a radius of a few miles. The State also contends the same knife was used in the crimes.

However, this case clearly fails to meet the requirements for consolidation. The crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances, and required different evidence for proof. Furthermore, the prejudice to appellant is apparent. See State v. Tate, 286 S.C. 463, 334 S.E.2d 289 (S.C.App. 1985), citing City of Greenville v. Chapman, 210 S.C. 157, 41 S.E.2d 865 (1947). It is evident the charges against appellant did not arise out of the same transaction. State v. Whitener, 238 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701 (1955).

Next, appellant argues the lower court erred in admitting color autopsy photographs of one of the victims. Three depicted the victim's scalp pulled away from her skull. One showed her surgically opened vaginal cavity exposing a large amount of seminal fluid. Before the photographs were introduced, appellant offered to stipulate to any facts shown by the photographs; however, the solicitor refused to accept any stipulations.

The State argues the photographs were properly admitted to (a) corroborate forensic testimony; (b) show the violence of the murders; and (c) corroborate statements made by appellant. Middleton, on the other hand, contends the photos contained no disputed information, and could have been proved by other testimony. The State candidly admits the photographs were not essential to the prosecution.

Appellant urges the adoption of a special rule for autopsy photographs. See Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 862, 302 S.E.2d 347 (1983); See also Conklin v. State, 254 Ga. 558, 331 S.E.2d 532 (1985); however, it would be inappropriate to adopt a new rule of law where an existing rule can be applied. See Hossenlopp v. Cannon, 285 S.C. 367, 329 S.E.2d 438 (1985). (Gregory and Harwell, JJ, dissenting). Since, under long-standing precedent, the photos should have been excluded, we need not determine the propriety of a new rule.

Although photographs may be used to corroborate other evidence, See State v. Robinson, 201 S.C. 230, 22 S.E.2d 587 (1942), it is well-established that photographs calculated to arouse the sympathies and prejudices of the jury are to be excluded if they are irrelevant or unnecessary to the issues at trial. State v. Edwards, 194 S.C. 410, 10 S.E.2d 587 (1940). Appellant's counsel offered to stipulate to any relevant information contained in the photographs, and it is clear the information was not really at issue. Furthermore, the testimony of the forensic pathologist negated any arguable evidentiary value of the photographs. The prejudice created by the photographs clearly outweighed any evidentiary value. See State v. Waitus, 224 S.C. 12, 77 S.E.2d 256 (1953); See also State v. Edwards.

Third, appellant alleges it was error for the solicitor to have elicited from a State's witness that appellant declined to comment on the Hiott robbery when being questioned by police. In fact, the solicitor compounded the error by repeating the answer. This was an obvious unconstitutional comment on Middleton's post-arrest silence. State v. Sloan, 278 S.C. 435, 298 S.E.2d 92 (1982).

Finally, appellant argues the trial judge erred in admitting his confession without having first found that the confession had been taken in compliance with the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). At the Jackson v. Denno hearing, the lower court did find the statement was voluntary. The State contends this finding contained an implicit recognition that Miranda had been complied with. However, an affirmative finding under Miranda was also required.

In order to secure the admission of a defendant's statement, the State must affirmatively show the statement was voluntary and taken in compliance with Miranda. State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 283 S.E.2d 582 (1981); State v. Callahan, 263 S.C. 35, 208 S.E.2d 284 (1974). Such is required due to the broad protection of Miranda in contrast to the traditional concept of voluntariness. See Oregon v. Elstad, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1292-93, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985).

The numerous errors below mandate reversal of appellant's conviction and sentence, and a remand for new trials. Accordingly, the case is reversed, and remanded for separate trials on each murder and criminal sexual conduct charge, and on all charges arising from the attempted robbery of the Hiott Grocery Store.

Reversed and remanded.

NESS, C.J., and HARWELL, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Middleton

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jan 29, 1986
288 S.C. 21 (S.C. 1986)

holding the defendant's charges failed to meet the requirements for consolidation because "the crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances, and required different evidence for proof"

Summary of this case from Tyler v. State

holding although prison escapee committed two murders within a few miles of each other and attempted an armed robbery, the trial judge erred in consolidating the charges for one trial where the crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances and they required different evidence

Summary of this case from State v. Simmons

holding although prison escapee committed two murders within a few miles of each other and attempted an armed robbery, the trial judge erred in consolidating the charges for one trial where the crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances and they required different evidence

Summary of this case from State v. Jones

reversing the consolidation of charges of murder of one victim on June 9th, murder of a second victim in a similar manner on June 10th, and an attempted robbery on June 11th because the crimes did not arise out of a single chain of circumstances

Summary of this case from State v. Beekman

reversing where charges of rape and murder of one victim, rape and murder of a second victim the next day, and attempted robbery and assaults on the day after were consolidated for trial

Summary of this case from State v. Cutro

explaining autopsy photographs similar to the ones at issue in this case have potential "to arouse the sympathies and prejudices of the jury"

Summary of this case from State v. Heyward

In Middleton, we considered a challenge to the trial court's admission of photographs showing the victim's scalp pulled away from her skull and her surgically opened vaginal cavity filled with semen.

Summary of this case from State v. Jones

noting the trial court must make an affirmative finding that there was no violation of Miranda during a Jackson v. Denno hearing before admitting a statement into evidence

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

noting the trial court must make an affirmative finding that there was no violation of Miranda during a Jackson v. Denno hearing before admitting a statement into evidence

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson

In Middleton, our supreme court held, "[P]hotographs calculated to arouse the sympathies and prejudices of the jury are to be excluded if they are irrelevant or unnecessary to the issues at trial.

Summary of this case from State v. Thompson

noting the trial court must make an affirmative finding that there was no violation of Miranda v. Arizona during a Jackson v. Denno hearing before admitting a statement into evidence

Summary of this case from State v. Johnson
Case details for

State v. Middleton

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Respondent v. Frank MIDDLETON, Jr., Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Jan 29, 1986

Citations

288 S.C. 21 (S.C. 1986)
339 S.E.2d 692

Citing Cases

State v. Nelson

Moreover, "[I]t is well-established that photographs calculated to arouse the sympathies and prejudices of…

State v. Jones

"[I]t is well-established that photographs calculated to arouse the sympathies and prejudices of the jury are…