741 S.E.2d 708
S.C.2013Background
- Appellant Stephen Christopher Stanko was convicted of murder and armed robbery and sentenced to death.
- The Victim, an elderly man, was shot in the back with a pillow used as a silencer, then beaten and killed during April 8, 2005 events.
- Stanko stole the Victim’s gray Mazda and fled; he later traveled across the state and engaged in social activity with cash and drinks.
- Police recovered the Victim’s vehicle and a bag containing the Victim’s gun and other items when Stanko was arrested.
- Stanko presented an insanity defense, arguing CNS dysfunction and lack of understanding of right from wrong at the time of the murder.
- The jury ultimately found guilt on murder and armed robbery and recommended death; the trial court sentenced accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on inferred malice from deadly weapon | Stanko argues Belcher precludes inferred malice when insanity evidence is present. | Stanko contends the instruction was improper under Belcher and related cases. | Error occurred but not reversible under harmless error analysis. |
| Conflict of interest waiver for trial counsel | Stanko contends waiver of counsel conflict was inadequate. | Diggs represented Stanko with informed consent despite potential PCR issues. | Waiver valid; no reversible error. |
| Juror qualification given knowledge of prior death penalty | Juror knew of prior death sentence and claimed bias. | Court could determine juror could follow law and be impartial. | Juror properly qualified; no reversible error. |
| Change of venue due to pretrial publicity | Pretrial publicity in adjacent case suggested prejudice. | Voir dire showed jurors could set aside information; no need to move venue. | No abuse of discretion in denying change of venue. |
| Eighth Amendment—execution of appellant given alleged brain dysfunction | Insanity/brain-dysfunction should bar execution under evolving standards of decency. | Defendant argues capital punishment not appropriate for him given CNS issues. | Execution not barred; court upheld death sentence under controlling law. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Belcher, 385 S.C. 597 (2009) (rejected inferring malice from a deadly weapon when mitigating evidence is present)
- State v. Elmore, 308 S.E.2d 781 (1983) (overruled in part by Belcher on inferred malice)
- State v. Lindsey, 642 S.E.2d 557 (2007) (limits on voir dire to disqualify jurors with equivocal death-penalty views)
- State v. Green, 392 S.E.2d 157 (1990) (juror impartiality despite adverse death-penalty views on voir dire)
- State v. Evins, 645 S.E.2d 904 (2007) (change-of-venue analysis in pretrial publicity context)
- Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) (due process concerns with pervasive pretrial publicity)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (fair cross-section requirement for juries)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (evolving standards for execution of juveniles)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (intellectual disability and death penalty limitations)
- Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) (death penalty limits for aiding and abetting without killing)
- Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) (death penalty for rape cases not allowed)
- Franklin v. Maynard, 356 S.C. 276 (2003) (definition and application of intellectual disability in death penalty context)