State v. Putnam

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Putnam

DecidedDecember 2, 2011

Docket2011-UP-526

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Putnam (State v. Putnam) 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. Putnam, (S.C. Ct. App. 2011).

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.

Martina Putnam, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County
George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-526
Submitted November 1, 2011 Filed December 2, 2011

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Martina Putnam appeals her conviction for homicide by child abuse, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made to police officers without Miranda[1] warnings in the waiting rooms of two hospitals where her baby was receiving treatment. We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Evans, 354 S.C. 579, 583, 582 S.E.2d 407, 409 (2003) ("Appellate review of whether a person is in custody is confined to a determination of whether the ruling by the trial [court] is supported by the record."); State v. Navy, 386 S.C. 294, 301, 688 S.E.2d 838, 841 (2010) ("Whether a suspect is in custody is determined by an examination of the totality of the circumstances, such as the location, purpose, and length of interrogation, and whether the suspect was free to leave the place of questioning."); id. (stating the determination of custody is objective, namely "would a reasonable person have believed he was in custody"); State v. Easler, 327 S.C. 121, 128, 489 S.E.2d 617, 621 (1997) ("The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

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

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.

Martina Putnam, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County
George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-526
Submitted November 1, 2011 Filed December 2, 2011

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Martina Putnam appeals her conviction for homicide by child abuse, arguing the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made to police officers without Miranda[1] warnings in the waiting rooms of two hospitals where her baby was receiving treatment. We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Evans, 354 S.C. 579, 583, 582 S.E.2d 407, 409 (2003) ("Appellate review of whether a person is in custody is confined to a determination of whether the ruling by the trial [court] is supported by the record."); State v. Navy, 386 S.C. 294, 301, 688 S.E.2d 838, 841 (2010) ("Whether a suspect is in custody is determined by an examination of the totality of the circumstances, such as the location, purpose, and length of interrogation, and whether the suspect was free to leave the place of questioning."); id. (stating the determination of custody is objective, namely "would a reasonable person have believed he was in custody"); State v. Easler, 327 S.C. 121, 128, 489 S.E.2d 617, 621 (1997) ("The initial determination of whether an individual was in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Putnam, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-putnam-scctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack