Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

330 S.C. 207

499 S.E.2d 209

State v. Hicks

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Decided April 27, 1998

Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1998-04-27

Relies on State v. Tyner · State v. Patrick · State v. Atkins

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Shuler (2001), State v. McKnight (2003)

52 state decisions

410199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

FINNEY, Chief Justice:

¶1I respectfully dissent and would vacate appellant’s death sentence and remand for resentencing.

¶2In my view the charge as a whole was confusing and could lead a juror to conclude incorrectly that the state satisfies its burden by proving at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt and then the burden shifts to appellant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he *220should not be sentenced to death. State v. Patrick, 289 S.C. 301, 345 S.E.2d 481 (1986) (capital defendant has no burden of proof).

¶3The trial judge stated in part:

[A]ny decision you make with regard to sentence for the defendant must be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt....
Also, you must find unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt that the sentence you have decided to impose is the appropriate sentence in light of the record of the case.

¶4A capital jury needs to understand the following concepts: (1) it could recommend life imprisonment even if it found the existence of one or more statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) it need not find a mitigating circumstance in order to impose life imprisonment; and (3) it could recommend a life sentence for any reason or no reason at all. State v. Atkins, 303 S.C. 214, 399 S.E.2d 760 (1990); State v. Tyner, 273 S.C. 646, 258 S.E.2d 559 (1979). The judge did not instruct the jury on the first and third concepts. Furthermore, the judge instructed the jury at least twice that any sentencing decision must be based upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶5Considering the jury instructions as a whole, I believe a reasonable juror could have been confused and misled by the instruction and given the impression that there was a burden upon appellant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury should recommend mercy in the sentencing. Under these instructions, a reasonable juror could conclude the burden was on appellant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he should not be sentenced to death.

¶6Accordingly, I would vacate appellant’s death sentence and remand for resentencing.

/330/sc/207 · .json · Public domain