From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Wilson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Feb 22, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-099 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-099

02-22-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Jake Antonio Wilson, Appellant.

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted February 1, 2012

Appeal From Charleston County, Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge.

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Jake Antonio Wilson appeals his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. On appeal, Wilson contends the trial court erred in allowing testimony that Wilson had changed his mind and exercised his right to counsel after he had initially waived his rights, thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as applied in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). We affirm.

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

Doyle recognized evidence of post-arrest silence can be introduced by the prosecution when used to challenge the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest. State v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 39, 599 S.E.2d 448, 451 (2004). When post-arrest silence is not offered as substantive evidence of guilt, there is no violation of the fundamental fairness standard of Doyle. Id. at 40-41, 599 S.E.2d at 451. Here, evidence exists that the testimony the trial court allowed was not introduced as substantive evidence of guilt. Rather, the testimony was introduced to show Wilson's statement to police was voluntary and to challenge Wilson's testimony that he was too intimidated to request counsel. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Wilson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Feb 22, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-099 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Jake Antonio Wilson, Appellant.

Court:THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Feb 22, 2012

Citations

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-099 (S.C. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2012)

Citing Cases

State v. Wilson

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy…

State v. Wilson

He raised only one issue on direct appeal, contending the trial court committed reversible error in allowing…