Court Opinion

ID: 9616640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:48:22.158676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:59.488833
License: Public Domain

Bussey, Justice,
(dissenting) :
Not being convinced that the convictions and sentences herein should be affirmed, I most respectfully dissent. Essential to a proper disposition of the issues is, I think, a somewhat fuller statement of the factual situation.
The defendants-appellants aged 19 and 20 respectively, were charged with and convicted of a single isolated, solicited sale of slightly more than 1/7 of 1 ounce of marijuana and upon conviction were each sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment which could be imposed, to wit: 5 years. Both defendants were employed construction workers and there is nothing in the record to suggest that either of them, if guilty, had ever had any other connection with marijuana or any other controlled substance. Their conviction rested solely and entirely upon the testimony of one, Mrs. Ramsey, whose age does not appear in the rec*523ord, but whose youngest son was apparently a contemporary acquaintance of the defendant Queen, Mrs. Ramsey being inferentially a middle-aged woman.
According to her testimony the sale of marijuana occurred in the front yard of the Ramsey residence in the City of Barnwell between 10 and 11 p. m. on the night of March 8, 1974, and the sale was made from a van occupied by the two defendants and one Eddie Queen, a brother of the defendant Queen. The defendant Moore was known to Mrs. Ramsey only by sight and not by name. There had been a cookout at the Ramsey residence and a number of guests were present. According to the testimony of Mrs. Ramsey she heard one of the guests, David Satterfield, say to the defendant Queen in the yard “I’m not going to pay you that kind of money for that stuff.”
Neither Satterfield nor any other guest of the Ramsey’s was called as a witness to confirm any part of Mrs. Ramsey’s testimony, but in any event according to her she went into the yard and said to Moore, “What have you guys got on you?” To which Moore replied, “Nothing”. She then stated to Moore “Oh come on now. I know you’ve got something. Don’t you have one roll?” And Moore said “No, but I’ve got $5.00 worth I’ll sell you.” To which Mrs. Ramsey said “Okay.” She then went into the house, got five $1.00 bills and handed the same to Moore and in turn defendant Queen handed her a plastic bag which contained the small portion of marijuana. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Ramsey contacted the police, delivered the plastic container to them and the officers intercepted the defendants still traveling in the van and searched both the defendants and the van, which search produced no other marijuana. There was undisputed evidence that upon this search Moore did not have upon his person even one of the $1.00 bills allegedly given him by Mrs. Ramsey shortly theretofore.
*524Officer Sanders, one of the arresting officers, obtained an arrest warrant from Judge Harry Birt at about 11 p. m. on the night of the alleged sale. In the affidavit Officer Sanders gave as the source of his information an individual “acting in an undercover capacity.” He denied on the stand, however, that he had so told Judge Birt although he had so sworn in the affidavit and also denied any knowledge of Mrs. Ramsey being an undercover agent. Mrs. Ramsey swore that she was not an undercover agent and no charge as to the law of entrapment was asked for or given.
Both defendants testified and denied having made or participated in any sale of marijuana to Mrs. Ramsey. Eddie Queen, brother of the defendant Queen testified that the marijuana acquired by Mrs. Ramsey was sold by him to Mrs. Ramsey for $5.00 and that neither of the defendants had any knowledge of the marijuana or any connection with the sale. That such was the only marijuana he ever had; that he had obtained the same from a man in West Columbia some days before; understood from one of Mrs. Ramsey’s sons that she smoked pot and that Mrs. Ramsey begged him to make the sale.
The evidence shows that there was drinking at the cookout held at the Ramsey home and evidence is quite conflicting as to Mrs. Ramsey’s state of sobriety or drunkenness at the time of the marijuana sale. There is evidence that she was relatively sober and evidence that she was quite drunk, but, even according to her testimony she had had five or six beers in the course of the evening. As above mentioned none of the guests were called to corroborate any portion of Mrs. Ramsey’s testimony, but one of her guests testified for the defense that Mrs. Ramsey was drunk.
When the case came on for trial the defendants moved for a continuance on the ground, inter alia, that the remarks of the trial judge to the petit jury venire upon the opening of court tended to deprive the defendants of the right to *525trial before a fair and impartial jury. Unfortunately there is no record of precisely what the trial judge said or the context in which such was said. The record does contain, in connection with the motion for continuance and a subsequent motion for a new trial on the same ground, an extensive colloquy between counsel and the court as to what was said by the court and how such might or might not have been interpreted by the petit jurors to the prejudice of the defendants. Such colloquy, at best, gives this Court only an approximate inferential picture of what actually occurred.
Understandably, counsel was under some degree of restraint in giving counsel’s version of the episode. On the other hand it is obvious that His Honor was not conscious of having said anything which prejudicially affected the rights of the defendants or else he would have granted the motion. Under the circumstances of this case we are confronted with a quite serious question as to whether or not there were prejudicial remarks which resulted in the denial of the right of defendants to a trial before a fair and impartial jury. Must the answer thereto, however, rest only upon the recollection of the trial judge as to what he said, the context in which said, and his construction of the remarks ?
As nearly as we can ascertain the pertinent facts and inferences therefrom are about as follows. At the summer term of the General Sessions Court in Barnwell County in 1973 there was tried before the trial judge a robbery case of some notoriety in which the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. It apparently was no secret around the courthouse and among the Bar of Barnwell County that His Honor was not well pleased with such verdict. To what extent the general public, in a county the size of Barnwell, was aware of His Honor’s disapproval is, of course, a matter of speculation in the absence of proof thereabout.
*526At the 1974 summer term in Barnwell County at which the defendants were convicted, His Honor was holding his last session of criminal court in that county. Upon the opening of court he apparently addressed the grand jury, the members of the petit jury venire, the Bar and the spectators at some length. In the course thereof he reminisced considerably, told about a personal experience when practicing of not pleading a client guilty who should have pled guilty and the travail that followed, mentioned the robbery case of 1973, and gave a law and order charge to the jurors emphasizing that the failure to enforce the law would result in chaos in Barnwell County. While I am sure that His Honor meant or intended no prejudice to any of the defendants no logical reason appears or is given for his mentioning the 1973 case regardless of what he said or didn’t, say thereabout.
It is the contention of the defendants that the remarks of His Honor taken in their entirety tended to urge the jurors to bring in guilty verdicts or else face chaos in Barn-well County and displeasure from the trial judge. If his remarks were such as to produce such an effect on the minds of the jurors, it is highly improbable that voir dire examination and standard charges on the presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, etc. could possibly cure such prejudice.
In the absence of a record of what actually occurred this Court is, of course, not in position to decide with any degree of certainty whether or not the constitutional right of the defendants to a fair trial was prejudiced. The absence of a record, however, is not the fault or responsibility of the defendants. Under the American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice, the Function of the Trial Judge, section 2.5, we find the following provision: “The trial judge has a duty to see that the reporter makes a true, complete and accurate record of all proceedings.” I do not think that *527the quoted standard, or any other requirement, necessarily compels a trial judge to make a complete record of general or purely formal remarks made to either a grand jury or a venire of petit jurors. I think, however, that it is clearly incumbent upon a trial judge, whenever he departs from a well beaten path and makes any unnecessary statements to jurors which conceivably could have a prejudicial effect, to see that a complete record be made to the end that the rights of the defendants in criminal cases be fully protected and that a reviewing court would not have to speculate about whether or not his remarks were prejudicial.
Since the record clearly discloses what is a possibility if not a probability of the denial of the constitutional rights of the defendants any reasonable doubt thereabout should be resolved in favor of the defendants. In Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. (2d) 705, it was held that where a trial error was of constitutional dimension such could not be harmless error unless such could be determined to be clearly harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Under the circumstances of this case, where no record was made by the court, and it is asserted that a constitutional error was made to the prejudice of the defendants, I would have no hesitancy in holding that all reasonable doubt, as to whether such an error was made, should be resolved in favor of the defendants. I would conclude as did the Court in State v. Sharp, 239 S. C. 258, 122 S. E. (2d) 622 (1962), that this Court “in order to remove all doubt as to whether the appellant(s) received a fair and impartial trial guaranteed * * * by the Constitution of this State and of the United States that this Court should reverse * * * and remand the case to the lower court for a new trial.”
With respect to the sentences imposed it is, of course, true that the general rule is that a sentence within the limits prescribed by law will normally not be disturbed by this *528Court because of alleged excessiveness. At the same time we have always recognized that even though within the statutory limits a sentence under the circumstances of a particular case may be so grossly disproportionate to the offense committed as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution of this State. See State v. Gregory, 198 S. C. 98, 16 S. E. (2d) 532; State v. Gamble, 249 S. C. 605, 155 S. E. (2d) 916; and State v. Kimbrough, 212 S. C. 348, 46 S. E. (2d) 273.
In the instant case, assuming the truth of Mrs. Ramsey’s testimony she was able to solicit a sale by the defendants to her of slightly more than 1/7 of 1 ounce of marijuana. The sentences imposed upon the defendants were as heavy as the court could have imposed had they been hardened criminals and had offered for sale, or sold, after advertisement and solicitations by them, a warehouse full of marijuana for a million dollars. I am unable to ascertain anything in the record which would justify such a harsh sentence upon these defendants. They were both quite young working men. The defendant Queen had a juvenile record which His Honor expressly did not consider and the only other record he had was one offense of disorderly conduct where he paid a $30.00 fine. Moore had a prior record, he having been charged on two different occasions with petty larceny in both of which his mother apparently posted and forfeited a bond in the amount of $25.00, Moore denying his guilt and never having been tried. His only other record appears to have been one for disorderly conduct and one or two traffic violations. Neither of the defendants had any record for any offense remotely related to the one here involved.
When all circumstances are considered the sentences imposed were so grossly disproportionate to the offense committed as to be, I think, cruel and unusual within the meaning and contemplation of the Constitution. The granting of *529a new trial would render unnecessary the decision of this constitutional issue. But in the absence of a majority of the Court being convinced that the defendants are entitled to a new trial, at least the sentences should be vacated and the cause remanded for the imposition of sentences which would not be violative of the Constitution.