Winkler v. State
418 S.C. 643
| S.C. | 2016Background
- Winkler was convicted of murder and sentenced to death; he later sought post-conviction relief (PCR).
- During the capital sentencing jury’s deliberations the jury asked what happens if it cannot reach a unanimous sentence; the trial judge refused to answer the substantive question and gave a modified Allen charge; trial counsel did not object.
- The PCR court granted relief, finding trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the court’s refusal to answer the jury’s question and imposed a life sentence instead of ordering a new sentencing proceeding.
- PCR counsel also sought funding and time to obtain MRI/PET neuroimaging to develop a claim that trial counsel failed to investigate Winkler’s possible brain damage; the PCR court authorized imaging but denied a requested continuance and later granted the State a directed verdict on the brain-damage IAC claim.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari on three issues: (1) trial counsel’s effectiveness re: failure to object to refusal to answer jury questions about a deadlock, (2) denial of additional time to obtain/analyze neuroimaging, and (3) whether the PCR court should have ordered a new sentencing proceeding.
- The Court reversed the PCR court’s ruling on counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to object (finding counsel’s decision reasonable given precedent) and reversed the denial of extra time for imaging, vacating the PCR court’s dismissal of the brain-damage claim; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Winkler's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting when the trial judge refused to answer jury questions about consequences of a non-unanimous sentencing recommendation | Trial counsel should have objected; jury was entitled to be told failure to reach a unanimous sentencing recommendation would result in life imprisonment | No precedent required or supported such an objection; judge’s refusal and the statement that verdict must be unanimous were lawful | Reversed PCR court; counsel not ineffective because no controlling state or federal authority supported an objection at trial (counsel’s conduct reasonable under Strickland first prong) |
| 2) Whether the PCR court abused its discretion by denying PCR counsel additional time to obtain/analyze MRI and PET scans to develop an IAC claim about brain damage | Denial deprived counsel of opportunity to develop and present the brain-damage claim; good cause existed for continuance given delays and medical issues | Court followed scheduling rules and aimed to expedite capital PCR; deadlines should be enforced | Reversed PCR court’s denial of continuance; abuse of discretion found; vacated PCR court’s dismissal of the brain-damage IAC claim and remanded for further proceedings |
| 3) Whether the PCR court erred by not ordering a new sentencing proceeding and instead imposing life imprisonment | PCR court’s remedy of life sentence was appropriate given court’s finding of prejudice | Imposing life was beyond proper PCR remedy; new sentencing hearing is the recognized remedy | Majority did not reach merits because of reversal on other grounds; noted that imposing life was improper and remand required (majority declined to order life) |
| 4) Admissibility of juror testimony about deliberations (raised in concurrence) | Juror testimony showed coercion / confusion that may have impacted verdict; Rule 606(b) exceptions for fundamental fairness apply | Juror deliberation testimony is barred by Rule 606(b) absent extraneous influence; much testimony was internal and inadmissible | Concurrence (Hearn, J.) would reverse based on improper admission of juror deliberation testimony under Rule 606(b) and remand for new PCR hearing; majority did not decide this as a basis for reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999) (Eighth Amendment does not require informing jurors of consequences of deadlock)
- Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994) (due process may require answering juror question when answer is necessary to evaluate a factual issue like future dangerousness/parole eligibility)
- Evans v. Thompson, 881 F.2d 117 (4th Cir. 1989) (no obligation to inform jury of outcome if they fail to reach verdict; analogous mid-deliberation question scenario)
- State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115 (S.C. 1981) (statute addressing effect of deadlocked capital jury addressed to judge only; need not be divulged to jury)
- State v. Copeland, 278 S.C. 572 (S.C. 1982) (trial court correctly refused to instruct jury on substantive effect of failure to reach unanimous punishment recommendation)