From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Gordon

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Dec 14, 2016
Appellate Case No. 2014-002555 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2016)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2014-002555 Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-516

12-14-2016

The State, Respondent, v. Reginald Lanard Gordon, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Susannah R. Cole, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.


THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. Appeal From Charleston County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Susannah R. Cole, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 378-79, 652 S.E.2d 444, 448 (Ct. App. 2007) ("When reviewing a trial [court's] ruling concerning voluntariness, the appellate court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines whether the trial [court's] ruling is supported by any evidence."); State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 601, 683 S.E.2d 500, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) ("When seeking to introduce a confession, the State must prove that the statement was voluntary and taken in compliance with Miranda [v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)]."); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 513, 702 S.E.2d 395, 401 (Ct. App. 2010) ("In South Carolina, the test for determining whether a defendant's confession was given freely, knowingly, and voluntarily focuses upon whether the defendant's will was overborne by the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession."); id. at 513-14, 702 S.E.2d at 401 ("Courts have recognized appropriate factors that may be considered in a totality of the circumstances analysis: background; experience; conduct of the accused; age; maturity; physical condition and mental health; length of custody or detention; police misrepresentations; isolation of a minor from his or her parent; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; threats of violence; direct or indirect promises, however slight; lack of education or low intelligence; repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; exertion of improper influence; and the use of physical punishment, such as the deprivation of food or sleep."); Miller, 375 S.C. at 386, 652 S.E.2d at 452 ("Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding a statement is not voluntary."). AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------


Summaries of

State v. Gordon

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Dec 14, 2016
Appellate Case No. 2014-002555 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Gordon

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Reginald Lanard Gordon, Appellant.

Court:STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 14, 2016

Citations

Appellate Case No. 2014-002555 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2016)