Opinion ID: 1212429
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: cross-examination of brown on failure to show remorse

Text: As noted above, Brown appeared pro se at both phases of his trial. Acting as his own attorney, he cross-examined State witnesses during the guilt-innocence phase. He did not testify or present any evidence during the guilt phase. After the jury's verdict in the guilt phase, Brown took the stand in the sentencing phase. He was cross-examined as follows: Q. You've been up here representing yourself during this trial? A. Yes, sir. Q. You've been cross-examining the witnesses that we've put up? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you intelligently asked your brother, Vonn, on cross-examination, many detailed questions and you asked many detailed questions on cross-examination of Susie Shawley, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And Chick Henson, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. You seemed pretty able to take care of yourself and handle the situation and know what was going on all of the time, didn't you? A. Yes, sir. Q. You weren't sorry then, were you? A. I didn't do it. [Emphasis supplied.] Brown contends the Solicitor's question was specifically directed toward his demeanor while acting as his own attorney in the cross-examination of witnesses. He argues that the Solicitor's interrogation violated due process by improperly treating his assertion of constitutional rights as a circumstance supporting the imposition of the death penalty. We agree, for the following reasons: (1) Brown had a constitutional right to act as his own counsel. See Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed. (2d) 562 (1975); S.C. Const. art. I, § 14. (2) Brown had a right to confront the witnesses against him. See Pointer v. Texas , 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed. (2d) 923 (1965). (3) Brown had a right to put the State to its proof. See Griffin v. California , 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed. (2d) 106 (1965); State v. Adams , 277 S.C. 115, 283 S.E. (2d) 582 (1981). (4) It is impermissible for the State to argue in favor of guilt or punishment based upon the accused's assertion of a constitutional right. See Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed. (2d) 91 (1976) (comment upon accused's post-arrest silence); Griffin v. California, supra , and State v. Goolsby , 275 S.C. 110, 268 S.E. (2d) 31 (1980) (comment upon accused's failure to testify at trial). The Solicitor's comments here are similar to those in State v. Sloan , 278 S.C. 435, 298 S.E. (2d) 92 (1982). In Sloan , we found egregious error in the State's closing argument during the sentencing phase: Has anyone said to you he's sorry, sorry for what he did? ... What have you been told up until you found him guilty. He has pled not guilty ... Is that someone who wants to be rehabilitated? 278 S.C. at 440, 298 S.E. (2d) at 95. The error here is equally egregious.