Court Opinion

ID: 9400072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 14:11:06.522681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:41.870829
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                         In The Supreme Court

            The State, Respondent,

            v.

            Travis Latrell Lawrence, Petitioner.

            Appellate Case No. 2021-001492

       ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

                         Appeal From Dorchester County
                        Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge

                              Opinion No. 28156
                   Heard February 8, 2023 – Filed June 7, 2023

                          AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

            Appellate Defenders Susan Barber Hackett and Jessica M.
            Saxon, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.

            Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
            Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both
            of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe Jr., of
            Orangeburg, for Respondent.

        CHIEF JUSTICE BEATTY: A jury convicted Travis Lawrence of
attempted murder following a brawl at the home of a friend, Clayton Baxter. At
trial, Lawrence argued that he acted in self-defense. To support this, he subpoenaed
his co-defendant present at the scene, Terell Bennett. Bennett, however, invoked his
Fifth Amendment right 1 while awaiting his own, separate trial. Bennett, like
Lawrence, was indicted for attempted murder, armed robbery, and possession of a
weapon during the commission of a violent crime. 2

       The trial court prevented Bennett's testimony, and the court of appeals upheld
the trial court's decision. We conclude Bennett faced a hazard of incrimination and
properly invoked his Fifth Amendment right.
                     I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

      According to Baxter, on July 2, 2016, he was contacted by Bennett, who told
Baxter he wanted to come over to "borrow some money." Baxter lived in Charleston
County with a friend. Baxter and Bennett knew each other well, and treated each
other as relatives. In fact, Bennett called Baxter "Unc," and Baxter called Bennett
"Nephew." Baxter admitted that he had marijuana in the house and had smoked
some that day.
      Bennett arrived and called Baxter to ask if anyone was home and to let Baxter
know he was outside. Baxter went to meet Bennett outside and noticed a set of legs
walking behind Bennett. Bennett stepped to the right, and a man stood there, holding
a revolver at Baxter. From prior interactions, Baxter recognized this man as
Lawrence.
      Lawrence ordered Baxter to give him money. Baxter kept cash in the home
from his Social Security benefits. Baxter testified that he waited for the two to "make
one mistake so [he could] capitalize on it." Baxter indicated that, inside the
townhome, Lawrence "raised[3]" the gun down, and a struggle ensued among the
three men. At this point, the gun accidentally fired into the ceiling. No one was
injured, including the friend who lived with Baxter and was upstairs at the time.
Amid the struggle, Lawrence went into the kitchen, and Baxter testified that
Lawrence grabbed a knife and slashed him. Lawrence and Bennett allegedly robbed

1
  Both the United States Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution contain
this protection. U.S. Const. amend. V; S.C. Const. art. I, §12. We refer to both
collectively as "the Fifth Amendment."
2
 Later after Lawrence's trial, Bennett pleaded guilty to attempted murder, and the
State dismissed the other charges.
3
    From the record, it appears Lawrence lowered the gun.
Baxter of seventy-five dollars and left with the weapons. Although Baxter was
severely injured, he managed to call for help. Lawrence disputed Baxter's version
of events through his self-defense claim at trial.
       The State indicted Lawrence for armed robbery, attempted murder, and
possession of a firearm. 4 During the State's case-in-chief, the trial court clarified
that Lawrence was prepared to call the co-defendant, Bennett, as a witness. Bennett's
counsel informed the court that Bennett would invoke his Fifth Amendment
privilege.

       After hearing arguments from both sides, the trial court decided to question
Bennett in camera. The trial court excluded counsel for both Lawrence and the
State; however, Bennett's counsel attended the hearing. Neither party objected to
the procedure; in fact, Lawrence's counsel suggested that the court proceed with this
hearing.

       Bennett's in camera testimony tended to show that he and Lawrence traveled
to Baxter's house that day to purchase marijuana. Bennett's version of events would
establish that Baxter attacked Lawrence first. Presumably, and as Lawrence argues
now on appeal, Lawrence would have used Bennett's testimony to show he acted in
self-defense. The trial court was made aware of the nature of Bennett's testimony.
In fact, Lawrence's counsel explained, in asking for the court to conduct the in
camera examination, "[the State] know[s] that the alleged co-defendant has come in
and told them this was an act of self-defense."
      The trial court clarified the gravity of the situation during its in camera
examination: "I just want to make sure I understand the full breadth of what you're
saying so I know whether or not you can invoke your right as far as implication.
You're putting yourself at the scene of this alleged crime; do you understand that?"
Bennett's counsel argued that any questioning by the State would reveal
incriminating information.
     Later during the trial, the court made its ruling on the record regarding
Bennett's testimony:

4
 Besides Baxter's identification, the State established the identities of Bennett and
Lawrence by Bennett's gold Cadillac. Bennett and Lawrence used the gold Cadillac
on the day of the incident, and Baxter testified that he knew Bennett drove that
vehicle.
      His silence is certainly justified in this matter and it appears to be that
      if he were allowed to testify, that he would incriminate himself and any
      questions, even those specific single questions may not be overtly
      incriminating—but would be incriminating through any further
      confessional proof so the [c]ourt will allow him to invoke his right
      against self-incrimination and protect him from testifying in this matter.

The jury convicted Lawrence of attempted murder, but found him not guilty of
armed robbery and possession of a firearm. 5 The trial court sentenced Lawrence to
thirty years in prison.

       The court of appeals affirmed Lawrence's conviction for attempted murder in
State v. Lawrence, 435 S.C. 231, 865 S.E.2d 800 (Ct. App. 2021), without oral
argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. The court concluded the hazard of
incrimination was openly apparent because Bennett was already being prosecuted as
a co-defendant and "[a]lmost anything Bennett could utter about the incident would
likely be used against him at his upcoming trial." Id. at 241, 865 S.E.2d at 805.
                         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 6

      "In criminal cases, this Court only reviews errors of law." State v. Gamble,
405 S.C. 409, 415, 747 S.E.2d 784, 787 (2013). "[T]his Court reviews questions of
law de novo." State v. Adams, 409 S.C. 641, 647, 763 S.E.2d 341, 344 (2014).
                                 III. DISCUSSION
       Lawrence argues that the hazards of self-incrimination from Bennett's
testimony were not openly apparent because the purported crime, the purchase of
marijuana, was never completed. Lawrence maintains that Bennett's testimony
would show he and Lawrence acted in self-defense. Conversely, the State contends
that the hazard of self-incrimination was openly apparent because Bennett was

5
  At first, the jury was deadlocked, and the trial court instructed the jurors pursuant
to Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).
6
  Both parties urge this Court to follow several other cited jurisdictions and adopt a
specific, abuse-of-discretion standard of review in cases involving the invocation of
the Fifth Amendment. We do not find a persuasive basis to do so and conclude our
broad, general standard sufficiently allows review of the trial court's ruling and
handling of the in camera hearing.
awaiting trial on indictments resulting from the same incident and there was
"obvious potential" for any answers to be incriminating.

      The court of appeals concluded the hazard of incrimination was openly
apparent: "Almost anything Bennett could utter about the incident would likely be
used against him at his upcoming trial." Lawrence, 435 S.C. at 241, 865 S.E.2d at
805. We agree.

       Both the United States Constitution and the South Carolina Constitution
provide that no person shall "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself." U.S. Const. amend. V; S.C. Const. art. I, § 12. While the South
Carolina Constitution often provides more protection than the federal Constitution, 7
this Court has previously observed that "the analysis under [these] two provisions is
identical." Grosshuesch v. Cramer, 377 S.C. 12, 23 n.2, 659 S.E.2d 112, 118 n.2
(2008). Additionally, the General Assembly has codified protections in criminal
questioning, stating generally: "No person shall be required to answer any question
tending to incriminate himself." S.C. Code Ann. § 19-11-80 (2014).
       Before analyzing the merits of the Fifth Amendment invocation, we conclude
the case law and the text of article I, section 12 support a conclusion that the South
Carolina Constitution, in this instance, provides the same protections as the United
States Constitution. Both provisions, substantively, share the same wording: "[No
person shall] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
U.S. Const. amend. V; S.C. Const. art. I, § 12. Further, we previously have
recognized the same conclusion. Grosshuesch, 377 S.C. at 23 n.2, 659 S.E.2d at 118
n.2.

       Returning to the basis of a proper invocation, this Court has explained that the
Fifth Amendment is "an assurance that an individual will not be compelled to
produce evidence or information which may be used against him in a later criminal
proceeding." Grosshuesch, 377 S.C. at 22, 659 S.E.2d at 117 (citing Maness v.
Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 461 (1975)). Further, the privilege extends not only beyond
incriminating answers or information but also "to answers furnishing a link in the
chain of evidence needed to prosecute an individual." Id. (citing Hoffman v. United
States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)).

7
  See, e.g., State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 643, 541 S.E.2d 837, 840 (2001) ("This
relationship is often described as a recognition that the federal Constitution sets the
floor for individual rights while the state constitution establishes the ceiling.").
      The protections of the Fifth Amendment are not limitless: "[I]t is well-settled
that an invocation of the privilege is confined to instances where a person has
reasonable cause to apprehend danger from his answer." Id. (citing Hoffman, 341
U.S. at 486). Moreover, a trial court is limited to compel a person's testimony if it
is "perfectly clear" the testimony will not result in criminal liability and the
testimony "cannot possibly have [a] tendency to incriminate." Hoffman, 341 U.S. at
486, 488 (internal quotation marks omitted).

       Here, we agree that the hazards of incrimination were openly apparent.
Bennett was present at the scene with Lawrence and established he was there to
purchase marijuana. At the time of Lawrence's trial, Bennett awaited his own trial
from the same incident. We agree with the conclusion of the court of appeals that,
"[a]lmost anything Bennett could utter about the incident would likely be used
against him at his upcoming trial." Lawrence, 435 S.C. at 241, 865 S.E.2d at 805.
While Bennett certainly could have given incriminating answers subject to the
invocation of the Fifth Amendment right, not all questions could have elicited an
incriminating response. However, it was patently clear that Lawrence was only
interested in Bennett's conversation with an investigator about the circumstances of
the crime.

       Lawrence's counsel was not present for the in camera questioning of Bennett.
Importantly, neither party argues—nor objected to—the procedure used in
conducting the in camera hearing. See, e.g., Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461,
465, 719 S.E.2d 640, 642 (2011) ("At a minimum, issue preservation requires that
an issue be raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge."). Regardless, we feel
compelled to address those issues for future guidance.
       At the outset, we emphasize the protections afforded by the in camera nature
of the examination. See State v. Hughes, 328 S.C. 146, 150, 152, 493 S.E.2d 821,
823 (1997) ("It is desirable the jury not know that a witness has invoked the privilege
against self-incrimination since neither party is entitled to draw any inference from
such invocation. . . . [Neither party] should be allowed to call witnesses who either
side knows will invoke the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury and then be subject
to inferences in a form not subject to cross-examination.").
       Nevertheless, the trial court should observe two more procedural precautions:
(1) unless the witness is the defendant in the case on trial, the trial court should not
allow a "blanket" invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and (2) under normal
circumstances, the trial court should allow counsel for both the witness and the party
calling the witness to be present at the in camera examination.
       First, while conducting an in camera hearing, the Fifth Amendment assertion
should be made on a question-by-question basis. In concluding a witness could
refuse to answer questions, the United States Supreme Court in Hoffman explained,
"To sustain the privilege, it need only be evident from the implications of the
question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question
or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because
injurious disclosure could result." 341 U.S. at 486–87 (emphasis added).

      Reiterating that a witness himself must assert the privilege, this Court
previously stated, "[I]n any case, it is well settled that a witness who is not also a
defendant can invoke that privilege only after the incriminating question has been
put." State v. McGuire, 272 S.C. 547, 550–51, 253 S.E.2d 103, 105 (1979) (holding,
under the narrow circumstances of the case, the trial court erred in refusing to allow
the cross-examination of a witness about previously admitted crimes) (emphasis
added). Most recently, in Grosshuesch, we established there are, at least, two
categories of incriminating questions. We identified the former as questions whose
incriminating nature are facially evident. Grosshuesch, 377 S.C. at 23, 659 S.E.2d
at 117–18. The latter are incriminating based on contextual proof. Id. at 23, 659
S.E.2d at 118. Our emphasis on the trial judge's duty to ascertain the incriminating
nature of questions demonstrates the need to have an assertion of the Fifth
Amendment privilege in response to individual questions.
       Second, the trial court should have allowed the presence of counsel for both
Bennett and Lawrence during the in camera hearing. Generally, "a defendant is
guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is
critical to its outcome if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the
procedure." Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987) (concluding, in another
context, that a criminal defendant did not establish his presence would have been
useful or beneficial during a competency hearing). Certainly, questioning Bennett
was a critical portion of Lawrence's trial because Bennett was the only other witness
and would establish Lawrence's claim of self-defense. Therefore, Lawrence's
counsel should have been present for Bennett's questioning and should have played
an active role in asking the questions and proffering testimony for the trial court.
However, all questions should have been reviewed by the trial judge before Bennett
was allowed to answer. In this case, the trial court was well aware of the nature and
context of the questions that Lawrence wanted Bennett to answer.

                                IV. CONCLUSION
       We hold the court of appeals correctly concluded that Bennett faced a hazard
of self-incrimination.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

KITTREDGE, FEW, JAMES, JJ., and Acting Justice Kaye G. Hearn, concur.