785 S.E.2d 479
S.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Marcus Dwain Wright was convicted by a jury of murder, cocaine trafficking, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, and possession of a weapon during a violent crime; court sentenced him to life plus concurrent and consecutive terms.
- Police obtained a search warrant for Wright’s home at 3635 Kate’s Bay Highway based on an affidavit prepared by Detective Weaver relying on information from Detective Cox (who relayed statements from co-defendant Lanard Powell) and Weaver’s oral testimony that Wright’s cell phone “pinged” in the area.
- Wright moved to suppress shell casings and an ammunition receipt seized at the residence, arguing the warrant affidavit contained inaccurate hearsay and failed statutory requirements; trial court denied suppression.
- Wright also moved to suppress drugs and money seized from a Sleep Inn motel room after officers forced entry when a suspect attempted to close the door; trial court admitted the evidence and denied suppression.
- At trial, Wright sought jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter and self-defense and later attempted (after resting) to testify; the trial court refused the requested charges and declined to reopen the record to let Wright testify. Wright also attempted to elicit a co-defendant’s prior inconsistent letter but failed to produce it when the State objected.
Issues
| Issue | Wright’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant for 3635 Kate’s Bay Highway | Affidavit contained inaccuracies (misstated Powell’s statements and exact address), so warrant lacked probable cause/violated §17‑13‑140 | Affidavit and Weaver’s oral testimony (cell‑phone ping, Powell’s statements as relayed) provided a totality‑of‑circumstances basis for probable cause | Warrant valid; magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; oral testimony properly supplemented affidavit and inaccuracies weren’t shown to be intentional/reckless |
| Admissibility of DMV records | State failed to lay foundation; records were inadmissible hearsay/business records exception not met | Records showed Wright’s residence differed from searched address, undermining standing | Court did not reach merit because search warrant issue dispositive; no ruling on DMV admissibility |
| Warrantless entry/search of motel room | Entry was unlawful; evidence seized was fruit of illegal search | Exigent circumstances and plain‑view justified entry/seizure (suspects identified as murder suspects, attempt to close door, weapon unrecovered) | Entry justified by exigent circumstances and officers could reasonably act to prevent flight/protect safety; drugs/money admissible |
| Exclusion of Powell’s alleged letter (prior inconsistent statement) | Trial court erred in excluding Powell’s prior letter implicating someone else; disclosure rules didn’t require pretrial production | State requested disclosure; defense failed to produce the letter at trial so contents unproven | Issue unpreserved: Wright failed to proffer the letter/evidence after State’s objection; exclusion not reviewable on appeal |
| Denial to reopen record to allow Wright to testify after defense rested | Wright has a constitutional right to testify; trial court’s refusal violated that right | Trial court reasonably denied reopening because allowing testimony after rulings would permit tailoring testimony to missing evidence/charges | No abuse of discretion; refusal to reopen was legitimate and not arbitrary; right to testify not violated |
| Refusal to give voluntary manslaughter and self‑defense instructions | Evidence (Victim’s statements and alleged reaching) supported both defenses and required instructions | Evidence insufficient: words alone not adequate provocation; no clear threat or lack of alternative means; multiple shots including wounds to the back undermined self‑defense claim | No abuse of discretion; jury charges properly refused — evidence did not warrant voluntary manslaughter or self‑defense instructions |
| Sentencing as LWOP under recidivist statute | Trial court erred in imposing LWOP without express statutory findings / record support | Trial court’s sentence sheet reflected "life imprisonment" under murder statute; court had authority to impose life under §16‑3‑20 | Court noted sentencing sheet did not mark §17‑25‑45; trial court had authority to impose life per murder statute; appellate opinion did not overturn sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201 (2009) (totality‑of‑circumstances test; exigent circumstances exception)
- State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436 (2011) (plain‑view and reasonableness inquiry under Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Dunbar, 361 S.C. 240 (2004) (hearsay from other officers may support warrants; hearsay veracity/basis of knowledge considered)
- State v. Jones, 342 S.C. 121 (2000) (statutory requirement that affidavits be sworn; oral testimony may supplement only where inaccuracies not knowingly/recklessly supplied)
- Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (constitutional right to testify subject to reasonable evidentiary limits)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (limitations on exigent‑circumstances entry when suspect is contained and weapon already recovered)
- United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985) (Terry‑type stops based on reasonable suspicion for completed felony)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (warrantless arrest following flight into dwelling may be permitted when arrest was set in motion in public)