Murderpedia has thousands of hours of work behind it. To keep creating
new content, we kindly appreciate any donation you can give to help
the Murderpedia project stay alive. We have many
plans and enthusiasm
to keep expanding and making Murderpedia a better site, but we really
need your help for this. Thank you very much in advance.
Charles O. Shuler, of Elloree, was sentenced to
die in March 2001 for murdering his former girlfriend, her mother
and her daughter on September 8, 1999. Brandishing a 12-gauge
shotgun, Shuler broke into Linda Williams' Myrtle Drive home near
Cordova and opened fire on the women.
During Shuler's trial the prosecutor promised
"a voice from the grave" and offered a 911 recording to seal
Shuler's fate. "I've been shot!" 13-year-old Stacy Williams told
an Orangeburg County 911 emergency dispatcher on September 8,
1999. "Who shot you?" the dispatcher asked.
"Charles Shuler," the girl replied.
Orangeburg County Sheriff's Office
investigators charged Shuler in the shooting deaths of Linda
Williams, 38; her mother, Dorothy Gates, 63; and her 13-year-old
daughter, Stacy. A jury spent little more than an hour before
finding Shuler guilty. He was later sentenced to death.
By Richard Walker - TheTandD.com
Terry Gates says he hopes the nightmares will
now go away.
“I see my mama, my sister, I see them all,” he
said. “But they never say anything.”
After appeals kept him alive on Death Row for
more than a decade, convicted triple murderer Charles Shuler has
died.
Officials with the South Carolina Department of
Corrections confirmed the Elloree man died of heart failure.
Gates says the family has been told the man who
murdered three members of their family died peacefully in his
sleep early Wednesday.
Gates wonders if, before he died, Shuler was
visited in his sleep as he has been. His nightmares began after
Shuler’s rampage in September 1999 left Gates’ mother, sister and
niece dead of multiple gunshot wounds.
Shuler, 64, was convicted in March 2001 of
murdering his former girlfriend, Linda Williams; her mother,
Dorothy “Dot” Gates, and Linda Williams’ 13-year-old daughter,
Stacy Williams.
He has been at Lieber Correctional Institution
— Death Row — since.
Jurors heard the voice of Gates’ niece during
Shuler’s trial when prosecutors introduced the 911 tapes.
“I’ve been shot!” 13-year-old Stacy tells an
Orangeburg County emergency dispatcher.
“Who shot you?” the dispatcher asks.
“Charles Shuler.”
Gates’ family tried having Shuler arrested on
several occasions before the shooting. They feared the man who had
been dating Linda Williams off and on for the previous two years.
Finally, an arrest warrant for unlawful
communication — typically a threat made over the phone — was
signed.
That warrant became useless on Sept. 8, 1999.
Just days before, Williams, 38, had told
authorities she believed Shuler would act on his threats to kill
her. She had ended her relationship with Shuler on Sept. 3.
“I am gonna come for your a - -,” Shuler says
on voice-mail at Williams’ residence that was introduced during
the trial.
A county deputy was at the residence when
Shuler called. He spoke with Shuler, who demanded to speak with
Williams.
When the deputy refused and told him not to
call her again, Shuler said, “I don’t give a d - - - what you
think; I ain’t afraid of the law.”
After the deputy left, Shuler continued to
call.
“Your little deputy dog, tell him to kiss my a
- -.”
After the shooting rampage, the family filed a
civil suit against Orangeburg County for failing to act on
repeated warnings that Shuler was dangerous. Orangeburg County
settled the case in 2003 for an unspecified amount under $180,000.
At the trial, testimony was introduced that a
small red car was driving erratically in the Cordova neighborhood
where Williams lived with her mother and daughter.
Buster Williams was 8 years old at the time. He
was working on a tree house in the backyard when he saw Shuler in
the car. The young boy testified the car suddenly drove over a
ditch and came to a halt in the Williams’ front yard and Shuler
got out with a gun.
“Nanny (Dorothy Gates) called me into the
house,” he said. The front door was locked so Shuler “busted
through the window,” the boy said.
Shuler “was cussin’ to my mama. He said, ‘I got
you now, you b - - - -.’ I ran out the back door.”
Buster was the only survivor that day.
Then-First Circuit Solicitor Walter Bailey
asked Buster if he heard anything as he ran to a nearby house.
“Shots,” he said.
Shuler shot Stacy Williams, Linda Williams and
Dorothy Gates with a shotgun.
The two adults died immediately. Stacy lingered
long enough to call 911 and tell operators who shot her and her
family.
Shuler was found on the floor with what was
determined to be a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Law enforcement
officers arriving on scene testified the gunman was still
screaming profanity at the women.
“At that time, I took the gun away from him.
When I reached over, he said, ‘F--- you, f--- them all, let ‘em
die’. ... ‘Kill the m - - - - - f - - - - - - and finish the job.’
He kept mumbling that,” one officer said.
The entire storm of shotgun blasts lasted just
a couple of seconds. The trial, only two days.
First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe said that
after nearly 14 years, no date for Shuler’s execution had been
set.
Just a few months ago, Shuler had asked for a
new trial. That motion could have been taken before the state
Supreme Court or even the U.S. Supreme Court, if unsuccessful.
“The delay, unfortunately, is very common
because there are a lot of grounds for appeal,” Pascoe said. “I
hate that it’s so hard on these families. I’ve always felt we
needed to speed up the appellate process.”
As for the decision to seek the death penalty,
Pascoe agreed with Bailey’s decision to prosecute Shuler’s as a
capital case.
“These acts are so heinous,” he said.
The late Lori Edens, sister of Terry Gates and
Linda Williams, spoke out about a 2003 Associated Press article
that focused on the loneliness of Death Row.
“They do not realize what we are going through?
When he dies, we have to live on with the torment every night,”
she said. “It’s the first thing I think about when I go to bed at
night and the first thing I think about every morning.
“What more do they want?”
Before her own death in 2010 after an extended
illness, Edens remained apoplectic with the man who murdered her
three family members.
“My family is in the dirt; we’ll never see them
again,” she said.
But Gates does. He still sees his mother, his
sister, his niece. After seeing them in his sleep for so many
years, he simply hopes the nightmares will now go away.
“I guess this is all the justice we’ll get,” he
said.
By Richard Walker - TheTandD.com
June 3, 2011
After five years, a post-conviction motion for
relief has been denied for triple murderer Charles Shuler.
Circuit Court Judge Casey Manning denied Shuler's arguments for a
new sentencing hearing at which the convicted killer could receive
a lesser sentence.
"The application for
post-conviction relief is denied in its entirety," Manning wrote
in his decision filed at the Orangeburg County Courthouse on
Tuesday. "Applicant has failed to show error, and he failed to
show prejudice such as would support the granting of either a new
guilt proceeding, or a new sentencing proceeding."
Lisa Armstrong, Shuler's attorney for the PCR motion, did not
return a message seeking comment Thursday.
Shuler, who turns 63 next month, is currently held at Leiber
Correctional Institution in Ridgeville after he was sentenced to
death in 2001.
He was found guilty of shooting
to death his former girlfriend, Linda Williams, her mother Dorothy
"Dot" Gates, and Linda Williams' daughter, Stacy Gates, on Sept.
8, 1999.
On that tragic day, Terry Gates lost
three family members - a mother, sister, and niece. Gates applauds
the judge's decision but feels a decade or more of appeals is
unreasonable.
"It's just the long wait, it's
just not right," he said. "If we don't get on to our
representatives and senators, it's going to always be that way."
First Circuit Solicitor David Pascoe said more appeals could be in
the offing in front of either Manning or the state Supreme Court.
Shuler can ask Manning to reconsider or he can go straight to the
state Supreme Court for an appeal of Manning's decision.
Once those appeals are exhausted on the state level, the federal
appeals are taken up.
Should Shuler be
successful during any step of the appeals process, he will still
serve life in prison for a first-degree burglary conviction
related to the murders.
Before handing down the
sentence 10 years ago, Circuit Court Judge Thomas W. Cooper Jr.
asked Shuler, "Do you have any comments before the passing of the
sentence?"
"No comments at all," Shuler said.
However, since that day in 2001, Shuler has said through his
attorneys much regarding his case, including the argument that his
attorneys were ineffective in his defense.
For
his automatic state appeal of the sentence, Shuler argued in 2003
that Cooper erred by allowing the jury to hear an entire 911 call
by a dying Stacy Gates without redacting emotional moments.
The South Carolina Supreme Court, however, unanimously confirmed
the conviction and the resulting death sentence.
In March, 2003 Shuler initially filed a post-conviction relief
application. That was later amended in July 2006.
Over the past five years, that relief application has been amended
twice.
In that later version, Shuler argued his
attorneys did not examine the shotgun used for defects in
function.
Shuler abandoned that argument to
contend that his attorneys did not object when testimony was
introduced at his trial that he made threats against another
person before the opening statements were made.
The final version of the relief application on which Manning ruled
alleged that not only were Shuler's trial attorneys ineffective
but his appeals attorneys as well.
Manning
dismissed the application for relief with prejudice, which means
the Elloree man cannot argue the same points again.
Gates plans a trip to Columbia, where he'll discuss with
legislators shortening the legal process of death penalty cases.
His sister, Lori, died in December without having seen the case
concluded.
"The way it looks, he's going to
outlive us all," he said.
The centerpiece of
prosecution's case against Shuler 10 years ago was the 911
recorded voice of Stacy, who was found inside the home suffering
from a shotgun blast to the back.
"I've been
shot!" 13-year-old Stacy tells an Orangeburg County 911 dispatcher
moments after the shooting.
"Who shot you?" the
dispatcher asks.
"Charles Shuler."
Besides Shuler, the only survivor was a child who ran out of the
house as the gunfire started.
Buster Williams
was 8 years old when an enraged Shuler broke a window at the
Cordova home, climbed inside and began blasting away with a
shotgun.
"Nanny (Dot Gates) called me into the
house," he testified in court. The front door was locked so Shuler
"busted through the window," Buster said. Linda Williams reached
for the phone "and Charles Shuler said, ‘Put the m-----f------
phone down.' He was cussin' to my mama. He said, ‘I got you now,
you b----.' I ran out the back door."
Investigators arriving on scene found Shuler had suffered a
self-inflicted gunshot wound to the abdomen.
Then-Lt. M.L. Varnadoe with the Orangeburg County Sheriff's Office
testified in court he found the girl talking on the phone with
911.
"She was moaning. She was trying to get up,
asking for help," Varnadoe said. "She was saying, ‘Please help me,
please help me.' She was in extreme pain. I was telling her to be
calm, that help was on the way."
The lieutenant
then found Shuler on the floor. He had a noticeable wound on his
left side, he said.
"At that time, I took the
gun away from him," Varnadoe said. "When I reached over, he said,
‘F--- you, f--- them all, let ‘em die'. ... ‘Kill the
m-----f------ and finish the job.' He kept mumbling that."
THE STATE OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court
The State,
Respondent,
v.
Charles O. Shuler, Appellant.
Appeal From
Orangeburg County
Thomas W. Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Opinion No. 25591
Heard December 3, 2002 - Filed February 3, 2003
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief
Attorney Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Office
of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney
General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General
John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald
J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Derrick K.
McFarland, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Walter M.
Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for respondent.
JUSTICE
BURNETT: Appellant was convicted of three counts of murder and
first degree burglary. He was sentenced to death for the murders
and life imprisonment for burglary. We affirm.
During his
opening statement, defense counsel admitted appellant killed Linda
Williams, her thirteen year old daughter Stacy, and Linda’s
mother, Dorothy Gates. He stated appellant had tried to cope with
a complicated relationship but “snapped.”
Evidence
indicated appellant lived with Linda for two years. On September
3, 1999, Linda asked appellant to move out of her home. The
following day, the police were summoned to Linda’s home and a
deputy told appellant to leave. Over the next day or two,
appellant telephoned Linda’s home numerous times and left
threatening messages on her answering machine. In one message, he
stated: “you can run, and you can hide, but you can’t go on
forever, because Charles is coming for your g___d___ ass. Because
you, Linda Gates, Dot Gates, Terry Gates, Lori Gates, and all you
m_____f____, because I am coming for you! I am coming for
you. You know what I mean? . . .”. (italic in original).
On September 6th,
a police officer was again dispatched to Linda’s home. While
listening to the answering machine tapes, the telephone rang. The
officer answered the telephone; appellant stated, “[p]ut that
whore on the phone. She owes me $40,000.” The officer told
appellant not to call again and appellant responded, “I’ll see her
later.”
Buster, Linda’s
nine-year-old son testified that around 7:00 p.m. on September 8,
1999, he saw appellant’s car circle the block three times before
driving into his yard. Appellant exited the vehicle carrying a
“long gun” and “busted through” a front window of Buster’s home.
Buster testified he ran inside and heard appellant tell his mother
“put the mother f___ phone down” and “I got you now, you bitch.”
While running to his neighbor’s home, Buster heard a shot.
Over appellant’s
objection, the State played a redacted tape recording of several
911 calls. [2]
Screaming and three gunshots are heard on the first call. The 911
operator states, “we’ve been going to this house all weekend.”
[3] During another call, a neighbor states her neighbor’s
child had come over and reported his mother’s boyfriend was trying
to kill his mother. On the last call, Stacy states five people
have been shot by appellant. In response to a question from the
operator, Stacy says she cannot feel below her waist and does not
know where she has been shot.
Sheriff’s
Department officers arrived at Linda’s home. Linda, Stacy, and
Dorothy had been shot. Appellant had also been shot.
[4] Initially, Linda appeared to be alive. Stacy, wounded in
the back, was moving on the living room floor; she inquired about
her brother. She stated “Charles” had shot them. Dorothy was dead.
Appellant was
lying on the floor in the hallway. An officer testified a shotgun
lay beside him; appellant’s finger was in the trigger release.
Appellant stated, “F___ them. F___ them all. Let them die.” The
officer took the shotgun from appellant and removed a live shell.
[5] Another officer stated appellant stated “Kill me. Finish
me off. Finish the job.”
A paramedic
testified Stacy asked about her brother and begged not to let her
die. She stated she was having trouble breathing. The paramedic
estimated Stacy died within ten minutes of his arrival.
A detention center nurse testified,
while arguing over who would receive medical treatment first,
appellant told another inmate, “. . . I’ve killed three people and
don’t mind making it four.” A detention center officer stated, on
the one year anniversary of the shootings, appellant pointed to
the newspaper picture of Dorothy and stated, either “I killed this
witch” or “I killed this bitch” and referred to her as the devil.
He stated he loved Linda and Stacy.
PENALTY
PHASE
At the beginning of the three-day sentencing proceeding, appellant
moved to exclude the admission of the unredacted 911 tape, arguing
the tape’s probative value did not outweigh its prejudicial
impact. The trial judge overruled the objection, concluding the
tape, while “extremely prejudicial,” was relevant to the
aggravating circumstance of torture.
[6]
After the State
played a portion of the 911 tape, Stacy’s father identified the
scream on the tape as belonging to his daughter. Thereafter, the
State played the tape in its entirety. In addition to identifying
appellant as the shooter, the tape contains several minutes of
Stacy’s conversation with the 911 dispatchers. Stacy’s breathing
is labored and she has difficulty speaking. Several times, Stacy
states “I’m hurting” and “please hurry.” Her pain and suffering
are evident.
Appellant offered
several witnesses in mitigation. An expert in clinical social work
testified appellant lacked socialization skills, was emotionally
immature, dependent on relationships, and that chronic alcohol
problems ran in his family. An expert in psychopharmacology
testified appellant suffered from chronic depression, anxiety, and
alcohol dependency. He suggested alcohol usage may have caused
some brain damage. An expert in neurology testified appellant’s
MRI revealed a loss of brain tissue.
An expert in
psychiatry diagnosed appellant with depression, possible
post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of the shootings, and
possible malingering. An expert in forensic psychiatry diagnosed
appellant with “adjustment disorder with depressed mood” as a
result of the shootings.
Detention center
witnesses testified appellant had not caused any problems in jail
while awaiting trial. An expert in the field of prisons and
corrections testified appellant could be confined in a
correctional environment for the rest of his life without harm to
himself or others.
Appellant did not testify. He did not make a final statement to
the jury.
[7]
During closing
argument, the solicitor played a portion of the 911 tape
(apparently the beginning of the tape with screaming and
gunshots). He later played all of the tape.
ISSUES
I. Did the
trial judge err by allowing the solicitor to “exploit” portions
of the unredacted version of the 911 tape during the sentencing
proceeding?
II. During
closing argument, did the solicitor improperly comment on
appellant’s constitutional right not to testify?
III. Did the
solicitor’s closing argument inject an arbitrary factor into the
jury’s deliberations?
I.
Appellant argues
the trial judge erred by allowing the solicitor to “exploit” that
portion of the 911 tape which depicts Stacy’s pain and suffering.
We disagree.
Relevant evidence
is defined as “evidence having any tendency to make the existence
of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.” Rule 401, SCRE. Although relevant, evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice. Rule 403, SCRE. The relevance,
materiality, and admissibility of evidence are matters within the
sound discretion of the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed
only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v.
Rosemond, 335 S.C. 593, 518 S.E.2d 588 (1999).
The purpose of
the sentencing phase in a capital trial is to direct the jury’s
attention to the specific circumstances of the crime and the
characteristics of the offender. State v. Owens, 346 S.C.
637, 552 S.E.2d 745 (2001). Evidence which would ordinarily be
inadmissible in the guilt phase of trial may be introduced during
the penalty phase. State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350
S.E.2d 180 (1986), cert.denied 480 U.S. 940 (1987).
During the sentencing phase, the trial judge may permit the
introduction of additional evidence of aggravation in order to aid
the jury in determining whether to recommend a death sentence.
Id.
The 911 tape was
properly admitted as its probative value outweighed its
prejudicial nature for two reasons. First, Stacy’s recorded
statements were relevant as they describe the crime scene
immediately after she and her family were shot. Like photographs
which are generally admissible in the penalty phase of a capital
trial, Stacy’s comments show the circumstances of the crime and
the character of the defendant. Id. (in sentencing
proceeding, trial court may admit photographs which depict the
bodies of the murder victims in substantially the same condition
in which the defendant left them in order to show the
circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant).
Second, Stacy’s apparent physical distress as revealed by the tape
was relevant to establish the aggravating circumstance of physical
torture.
[8]
Even though the pathologist described Stacy’s gunshot wounds as
painful, Stacy’s own expression of her pain and suffering more
fully chronicles the last few minutes of her life. See
State v. Rosemond, supra (use of photographs to
corroborate pathologist’s testimony victim lived for ten minutes
after shooting properly admissible in penalty phase). The 911 tape
was properly admitted as it was relevant to the aggravating
circumstance of physical torture. SeeState v. Johnson,
338 S.C. 114, 525 S.E.2d 519, cert.denied 531 U.S.
840 (2000) (crime scene photographs relevant to physical torture);
State v. Franklin, 318 S.C. 47, 456 S.E.2d 357, cert.denied, 516 U.S. 856 (photographs admissible in penalty
phase of capital proceeding as relevant to issue of physical
torture).
Furthermore, the
911 tape was not so unfairly prejudicial so as to substantially
outweigh its probative value. While difficult to hear, Stacy’s
physical and emotional distress is not so disturbing as to suggest
appellant’s sentence was made on an improper basis. State v.
Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 401 S.E.2d 146 (1991) (unfair
prejudice exists where evidence creates tendency to suggest
decision on an improper basis, commonly though not necessarily, an
emotional one).
Finally, the solicitor did not unduly exploit the 911 tape during
the penalty phase of trial. We agree with appellant that excessive
use of an otherwise admissible exhibit could result in a denial of
due process. SeePayne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808,
825 (1991) (“[i]n the event that evidence is introduced that is so
unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair,
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a
mechanism for relief.”). Nevertheless, we conclude the use of the
911 tape during the penalty phase of appellant’s trial did not
result in a denial of fundamental fairness. During the three day
proceeding, the prosecution played an excerpt from the 911 tape
for identification purposes
[9]
and the entire tape during the presentation of its evidence.
During closing argument, the solicitor again played a portion of
the 911 tape and the entire tape. Under the circumstances, the use
of the 911 tape did not result in a denial of due process.
II.
Appellant argues
the solicitor improperly commented on his constitutional right not
to testify during closing argument. We disagree.
During closing
argument, the following transpired:
Solicitor: I’m going to go ahead and play [the answering
machine] tape
[10]
again, and when you listen to that tape, I want you to think
about the circumstances of the crime and the characteristics of
the Defendant, which is what you all will need to base your
decision on.
[Played
answering machine tape].
Solicitor:
Where is the mitigation evidence in this case? Where is evidence
that [appellant] has ever done one good deed or had one decent
thought?
Defense
Counsel: Your honor, I believe that is burden shifting. He’s
starting to really - - -
The Court: No,
sir. I’ll note your objection. I overrule it. Thank you.
(Underline
added).
In part, the
trial judge charged the jury as follows:
Ladies and
gentlemen, I tell you now, and I emphasize to you again that the
fact that the Defendant did not testify in this portion of the
trial of this case is not a factor to be considered by you in
your deliberation and in your consideration on the question of
his sentence. It must not be considered by you in any way. It
must not mitigate [sic] against him in any respect because the
Defendant has a constitutional right to remain silent, and if he
chooses to assert that right, that fact cannot and must not be
considered by you in your deliberations; and so, please reach no
inference and draw no conclusion whatsoever from the fact that
the Defendant did not testify in this portion of the case. That
should not even be discussed by you. The burden of proof on
issues that are in dispute, as I have told you, is upon the
State, and the Defendant has no obligation to take the stand or
testify, and the fact that he did not take the stand and testify
is not a factor to be considered by you in your decision in this
case.
Appellant’s
argument that the solicitor’s comment implicitly referred to his
constitutional right not to testify is not preserved for review.
At trial, appellant claimed the solicitor’s comment improperly
shifted the burden of proof; he now claims the comment improperly
referred to his right to remain silent. Accordingly, whether the
solicitor’s comment improperly referred to appellant’s right to
remain silent is not preserved for review. State v. Byram,
326 S.C. 107, 485 S.E.2d 360 (1997) (a party cannot argue one
basis in support of motion at trial and another ground on appeal).
In any event, the
solicitor’s statement did not refer to appellant’s decision to
remain silent. Instead, the statement was a comment on the
evidence which had been presented by the prosecution --
appellant’s hateful and intimidating threats shortly before the
murders -- and the mitigating evidence which had been presented by
appellant. Johnson v. State, 325 S.C. 182, 480 S.E.2d 733
(1997) (court considers context in which remark was made).
Assuming the
comment did refer to appellant’s decision not to testify, the
error was harmless. While the State may not comment on the
defendant’s right to remain silent, seeGriffin v.
California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), an improper reference is
subject to harmless error analysis. Edmond v. State, 341
S.C. 340, 534 S.E.2d 682 (2000).
The trial court’s
instruction to the jury that it could not consider appellant’s
failure to testify in any way and could not use it against him
cured any potential error. Johnson v. State, supra
(even if comment on defendant's failure to testify was improper,
trial court’s instruction that jury could not consider defendant’s
failure to testify in any way and could not use it against him was
sufficient to cure any potential error); State v. Irvin,
270 S.C. 539, 243 S.E.2d 195 (1978) (possibility jury might have
interpreted solicitor’s comment as indicating State’s evidence was
conclusive proof of defendant’s guilt was negated by charge). The
lone remark did not “so infect the trial with unfairness as to
make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden
v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986), citing
Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974).
III.
Appellant argues
by telling jurors they would be personally responsible for future
murders if they did not sentence him to death, the solicitor
improperly diverted the jury’s attention from consideration of the
circumstances of the crime and of his character and improperly
injected an arbitrary factor into its consideration. We disagree.
The following
transpired during the solicitor’s closing argument:
Solicitor: We
know that [appellant] didn’t snap. We know that he planned this.
It was premeditated. He thought about it for days beforehand.
Defense
Counsel: Your honor, object to any arguments of deterrence.
The Court:
Excuse me. I’m sorry, the objection is to what?
Defense
Counsel: I object to any argument that goes into the line of
deterrence, Your Honor.
The Court: I
don’t think it’s going to do to that. That’s not where you’re
going with it.
Defense
Counsel: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
The Court: All
right, under the law he’s allowed to argue general deterrence, I
think as I understand. Thank you.
Solicitor: He
thought about it before he did it. If you impose the death
penalty on [appellant] maybe it will cause somebody else
thinking of murder not to do it, and you might spare an innocent
life or save a life.
(Underline
added).
At the conclusion
of the closing arguments, the trial judge noted appellant objected
to the State’s reference to deterrence. The trial judge overruled
the objection.
The solicitor’s
comment was clearly an argument on general deterrence. General
deterrence arguments are admissible in the penalty phase of a
capital trial. SeeState v. Shafer, 340 S.C. 291,
531 S.E.2d 524 (2000), overruledonother
grds. 532 U.S. 36 (2001). The argument did not inject an
arbitrary factor (fear or personal responsibility) into the jury’s
consideration. The solicitor’s remark did not “so infect the trial
with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of
due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, supra.
PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW
After reviewing
the entire record, we conclude the death sentence was not the
result of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, and
the jury’s finding of statutory aggravating circumstances for each
of the three murders is supported by the evidence. See S.C.
Code Ann. § 16-3-25 (1985). Further, the death penalty is neither
excessive nor disproportionate to that imposed in similar cases.
State v. Hughey, 339 S.C. 439, 529 S.E.2d 721, cert.denied 531 U.S. 882 (2000); State v. Rosemond,
supra; State v. Reed, 332 S.C. 35, 503 S.E.2d 747
(1998), cert.denied, 525 U.S. 1150 (1999); State
v. Kelly, 331 S.C. 132, 502 S.E.2d 99 (1998), cert.
denied 525 U.S. 1077 (1999); State v. Atkins, 303 S.C.
214, 399 S.E.2d 760 (1990), cert.denied 501 U.S.
1259 (1991).
[1]
While appellant’s issues arise solely from the penalty phase of
trial, we recite the guilt phase evidence in order to place the
penalty phase issues in context.
[2]
The tape consists of several calls to 911. Appellant requested a
large portion of the third call which had been placed by Stacy and
which reflects her distress be redacted. Over the State’s
objection, the trial judge agreed the bulk of the third call
should be redacted for purposes of the guilt phase.
[3]
A second call is unclear. The operator asks “were they fighting?”
The response is inaudible.
[4]
Testimony indicated appellant had a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
[5]
Four live shotgun shells were found in appellant’s pockets.
[6]
The State alleged the following statutory aggravating
circumstances: with regard to Dorothy, two murders by one act or
pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct and during the
commission of burglary; with regard to Linda, two murders by one
act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct and during the
commission of burglary; with regard to Stacy, two murders by one
act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, the murder was
committed during the commission of burglary, and the murder was
committed while in the commission of physical torture. S.C. Code
Ann. § 16-3-20 (C) (a)(1)(c) & (h) and (a)(9) (Supp. 2001).
[7]
The trial judge instructed the jury on the following statutory
mitigating circumstances: 1) appellant had no significant history
of prior criminal convictions involving the use of violence
against another person, 2) the murder was committed while
appellant was under the influence of mental or emotional
disturbance, 3) appellant’s capacity to appreciate the criminality
of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of
the law was substantially impaired, and 4) appellant’s mentality
at the time of the crime. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20(b) (1)(2)(6)(7)
(Supp. 2001).
[8]
The statutory aggravating circumstance of physical torture occurs
(1) when the victim is subjected to serious physical abuse before
death or (2) when the victim is subjected to an aggravated battery
before death. State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d 781
(1983), overruled on other grounds byState v. Torrence,
305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991).