 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
STATE v. PATTON6/10/1996
Appellant was convicted of two counts of murder and one count of second degree arson. He was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences for the murder counts and twenty years for the arson count. We affirm.
FACTS
On July 26, 1992, Appellant shot and killed his estranged wife, Sharon Patton, and their eleven-year-old daughter, Kimberly, in Sharon's mobile home. He then set fire to a building behind the mobile home.
At the beginning of the trial, Appellant made a motion to suppress all evidence seized from the property on the ground that the search and seizure were conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Appellant stated no grounds for this motion, and the trial court denied it. Appellant later moved for a mistrial because the trial court had failed to hold a hearing on the search and seizure issue. The trial court denied this motion as well, stating that the evidence "come in under so many exceptions that it really doesn't warrant a hearing."
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues that the trial court erred by not holding a suppression hearing on the search and seizure issue.
In State v. Blassingame, 271 S.C. 44, 47-48, 244 S.E.2d 528, 530 (1978), this Court pronounced a bright line test for when a Fourth Amendment suppression hearing must be held:
Whenever evidence is introduced that was allegedly
obtained by conduct violative of the defendant's
constitutional rights, the defendant is entitled to
have the trial judge conduct an evidentiary hearing
out of the presence of the jury at this threshold
point to establish the circumstances under which it
was seized. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774,
12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964). Although Jackson dealt
with the admissibility of a confession, its rationale
is equally applicable to the present case.
(Emphasis added.)
Under Blassingame, a defendant need not articulate specific grounds as to why a suppression hearing is necessary; he need only make a broad, general motion such as was made by Appellant in this case. Unchecked, this unconditional entitlement to a hearing — triggered merely by a bare allegation of unconstitutionality — invites defendants to invoke Blassingame in order to engage in pretrial discovery. Of course, in many instances the sound exercise of discretion mandates a suppression hearing; yet we also recognize that circumstances might exist which would lessen, if not completely obviate, the need for a hearing. Such circumstances arise when the defendant can point to no one argument which, as a matter of law, would entitle him to the suppression of evidence and when the trial court, cognizant of this fact, would not be enlightened by a hearing on the matter. Although we fully support the policy implicit in Blassingame of providing a threshold constitutional protection for defendants, we see no reason to fetter the trial court by mandating a futile suppression hearing. Upon careful consideration, therefore, we conclude that Blassingame is needlessly overbroad and modify it as follows.
To be entitled to a suppression hearing under Blassingame, a defendant must, by way of oral or written motion to the trial court, articulate specific factual and legal grounds to support his contention that evidence was obtained by conduct violative of his constitutional rights. The trial court shall, in the
In any event, the trial court's denial of a suppression hearing in this case was harmless and did not prejudice Appellant. The trial court did not blindly determine that Appellant's search and seizure issues were without merit. A Jackson v. Denno hearing was held regarding a confession made by Appellant which addu
Page 1 2 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|