State v. Cottrell, 421 S.C. 622

Background

In Dec. 2002, Officer Joe McGarry (on duty, in uniform) recognized Cottrell in a Myrtle Beach Dunkin’ Donuts; McGarry knew Cottrell from prior arrests and had been told Cottrell was a possible suspect in another homicide.
McGarry attempted an identification and announced intent to pat-down; Cottrell walked away with his right hand near his waistband; McGarry grabbed him from behind and they struggled.
Cottrell produced a .45 handgun and shot McGarry at close range; a gunshot exchange followed with Officer Guthinger; McGarry died at the scene.
Cottrell was convicted after a second trial (first conviction reversed for failure to charge voluntary manslaughter). The sentencing jury unanimously recommended death based on three aggravators (prior murder, killing an on-duty officer, risk to multiple persons).
On remand appeal Cottrell raised five issues: removal of appointed counsel before retrial; qualification of two jurors; exclusion of Detective Nathan Johnson’s testimony; refusal to give an instruction forbidding inference of malice from use of a deadly weapon; and the trial judge’s withholding of a jury note’s numerical split during sentencing deliberations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cottrell)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Removal of appointed counsel	Trial judge wrongly withdrew appointed counsel without factual findings; violated Sixth Amendment (counsel of choice/attorney-client relationship)	Judge properly exercised discretion to protect trial integrity and ensure effective counsel	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; removal permissible given attorneys’ admissions and judge’s concern for integrity of proceedings
Juror qualification	Two jurors said they would not consider background; they were "mitigation-impaired" and unfit for capital sentencing	Voir dire and later instructions showed jurors could wait for evidence and follow law; judge saw demeanor	Affirmed — judge’s qualification of jurors was supported by record and within discretion
Exclusion of Detective Johnson testimony	Johnson’s testimony about Hartman investigation was relevant to whether McGarry had reasonable suspicion; exclusion violated right to present a defense and Confrontation Clause	Johnson’s testimony was marginally probative, risked confusion and a prejudicial “trial within a trial”; McGarry’s suspicion was based on more than Johnson’s information	Affirmed — exclusion was within Rule 401/403 discretion; no prejudice shown; lawfulness issue for judge and jury focused on officer’s manner of action
Jury instruction re: inferring malice from deadly weapon	Judge should have expressly instructed jurors not to infer malice from use of a weapon (Belcher)	Judge complied with Belcher by removing any permissive inference; jurors may still make evidence-based inferences	Affirmed — instructions complied with Belcher; no abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence of malice independent of mere weapon use
Withholding numerical jury split in sentencing note	Failure to disclose numerical split deprived defense of ability to respond; violated right to counsel and fair sentencing	Judge reasonably withheld split (only two hours deliberation), treated note appropriately; any nondisclosure was harmless	Affirmed — even if nondisclosure error, harmless: no prejudice shown and judge properly concluded no deadlock after brief deliberation

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (right to counsel of choice is structural when erroneously denied)
State v. Sanders, 341 S.C. 386 (trial court’s duty to safeguard integrity can limit counsel-of-choice)
State v. Justus, 392 S.C. 416 (deference to trial court findings about juror/attorney issues)
U.S. v. Howard, 115 F.3d 1151 (trial courts have latitude in disqualifying counsel when conflicts/witness issues exist)
U.S. v. Williams, 81 F.3d 1321 (disqualification analysis and limits on waivers of conflicts)
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (reasonable-suspicion inquiry uses totality of the circumstances)
State v. Belcher, 385 S.C. 597 (bar on instructing jurors to infer malice from weapon use when mitigating/self-defense evidence exists)
Tucker v. Catoe, 346 S.C. 483 (Allen charge and handling of jury notes in capital sentencing)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (seizure occurs when physical restraint or submission occurs)
Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 (limits on exclusion of defense evidence; evidentiary rules can constrain right to present a defense)