State v. Campbell

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Campbell

339 S.E.2d 109, 287 S.C. 377, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 558

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedDecember 9, 1985

Docket22416

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 339 S.E.2d 109 (State v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Campbell, 339 S.E.2d 109, 287 S.C. 377, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 558 (S.C. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm.

At trial the State presented evidence that appellant killed Pat Swayngham by dousing him with gasoline and then setting him oh fire. In his jury instructions, the trial judge charged that malice may be implied from the use of a deadly substance or material. Appellant argues this charge was erroneous because there is no precedent for a charge on implied malice from the use of a deadly substance.

*379 The implication of malice may arise from the use of a deadly weapon. State v. Elmore, 279 S. C. 417, 308 S. E. (2d) 781 (1983); State v. Mattison, 276 S. C. 235, 277 S. E. (2d) 598 (1981). A deadly weapon is generally defined as “any article, instrument or substance which is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.” State v. Sturdivant, 304 N. C. 293, 283 S. E. (2d) 719 (1981); see A. L. I. Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 210.0(4) (1980). Because gasoline could be considered a deadly weapon in this case, the charge was proper. See Everhart v. State, 358 So. (2d) 1058 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978) (fire bomb or “Molotov cocktail” is a deadly weapon); State v. Morgan, 50 Mich. App. 288, 213 N. W. (2d) 276 (1973) (lighter fluid may be a deadly weapon).

Next, appellant contends his statement was erroneously admitted into evidence. Appellant made a statement to police officers when they arrived at his house with an arrest warrant. The officers did not read appellant his Miranda rights. Appellant made an identical statement at the police station after he was given a Miranda warning. Appellant alleges error in the admission of the second statement because he was not given a Miranda warning before the first statement was made.

An initial failure to administer Miranda warnings before a statement is given does not taint a subsequent statement, made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his Miranda rights, when both statements are voluntary. Oregon v. Elstad, _ U. S. _, 105 S. Ct. 1285, 84 L. Ed. (2d) 222 (1985); see also In re Christopher W., 285 S. C. 329, 329 S. E. (2d) 769 (S. C. App. 1985). The trial judge found that both of appellant’s statements were freely and voluntarily given. This finding is supported by the evidence. The second statement was properly admitted into evidence.

Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm.

At trial the State presented evidence that appellant killed Pat Swayngham by dousing him with gasoline and then setting him oh fire. In his jury instructions, the trial judge charged that malice may be implied from the use of a deadly substance or material. Appellant argues this charge was erroneous because there is no precedent for a charge on implied malice from the use of a deadly substance.

*379 The implication of malice may arise from the use of a deadly weapon. State v. Elmore, 279 S. C. 417, 308 S. E. (2d) 781 (1983); State v. Mattison, 276 S. C. 235, 277 S. E. (2d) 598 (1981). A deadly weapon is generally defined as “any article, instrument or substance which is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.” State v. Sturdivant, 304 N. C. 293, 283 S. E. (2d) 719 (1981); see A. L. I. Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 210.0(4) (1980). Because gasoline could be considered a deadly weapon in this case, the charge was proper. See Everhart v. State, 358 So. (2d) 1058 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978) (fire bomb or “Molotov cocktail” is a deadly weapon); State v. Morgan, 50 Mich. App. 288, 213 N. W. (2d) 276 (1973) (lighter fluid may be a deadly weapon).

Next, appellant contends his statement was erroneously admitted into evidence. Appellant made a statement to police officers when they arrived at his house with an arrest warrant. The officers did not read appellant his Miranda rights. Appellant made an identical statement at the police station after he was given a Miranda warning. Appellant alleges error in the admission of the second statement because he was not given a Miranda warning before the first statement was made.

An initial failure to administer Miranda warnings before a statement is given does not taint a subsequent statement, made after a suspect has been fully advised of and has waived his Miranda rights, when both statements are voluntary. Oregon v. Elstad, _ U. S. _, 105 S. Ct. 1285, 84 L. Ed. (2d) 222 (1985); see also In re Christopher W., 285 S. C. 329, 329 S. E. (2d) 769 (S. C. App. 1985). The trial judge found that both of appellant’s statements were freely and voluntarily given. This finding is supported by the evidence. The second statement was properly admitted into evidence.

Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are affirmed under Supreme Court Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 S.E.2d 109, 287 S.C. 377, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-campbell-sc-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack