State v. McNeil

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. McNeil

DecidedOctober 10, 2012

Docket2012-UP-548

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. McNeil (State v. McNeil) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. McNeil, (S.C. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Samuel McNeil, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-180846

Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-548 Heard September 12, 2012 – Filed October 10, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Samuel McNeil appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), arguing that his confession to police was involuntary because it was made while he was intoxicated and detained in the back of a police cruiser. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Saxon, 261 S.C. 523, 529, 201 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1973) ("[P]roof that an accused was intoxicated at the time he made a confession does not render the statement inadmissible as a matter of law, unless the accused's intoxication was such that he did not realize what he was saying. Proof of intoxication, short of rendering the accused unconscious of what he is saying, goes to the weight and credibility to be accorded to the confession, but does not require that the confession be excluded from evidence."); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 510-11, 702 S.E.2d 395, 399 (Ct. App. 2010) ("On appeal, the [circuit court's] ruling as to the voluntariness of the confession will not be disturbed unless so erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion."); State v. Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 544, 665 S.E.2d 247, 250 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The test of voluntariness is whether a suspect's will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the given statement. In making this determination, the [circuit] court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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

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.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Samuel McNeil, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-180846

Appeal From Florence County Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-548 Heard September 12, 2012 – Filed October 10, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Samuel McNeil appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), arguing that his confession to police was involuntary because it was made while he was intoxicated and detained in the back of a police cruiser. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Saxon, 261 S.C. 523, 529, 201 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1973) ("[P]roof that an accused was intoxicated at the time he made a confession does not render the statement inadmissible as a matter of law, unless the accused's intoxication was such that he did not realize what he was saying. Proof of intoxication, short of rendering the accused unconscious of what he is saying, goes to the weight and credibility to be accorded to the confession, but does not require that the confession be excluded from evidence."); State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 510-11, 702 S.E.2d 395, 399 (Ct. App. 2010) ("On appeal, the [circuit court's] ruling as to the voluntariness of the confession will not be disturbed unless so erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion."); State v. Breeze, 379 S.C. 538, 544, 665 S.E.2d 247, 250 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The test of voluntariness is whether a suspect's will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the given statement. In making this determination, the [circuit] court must examine the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. McNeil, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcneil-scctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack