State v. Baccus

Citations: 625 S.E.2d 216; 367 S.C. 41; 2006 S.C. LEXIS 9Docket: 26094

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina; January 9, 2006; South Carolina; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

John Roosevelt Baccus was convicted of murder and first-degree burglary related to the shooting death of his former girlfriend, Brenda Kay Godbolt, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for murder and concurrent life imprisonment for burglary. The case stemmed from an incident on November 14, 1999, where Godbolt, during a phone conversation, screamed that Baccus was present and threatened her. Following the call, a 911 report was made. Forensic pathology confirmed Godbolt died from a gunshot wound to the cheek, with another wound to her neck.

Officer Von Turbeville responded to the scene and obtained details from Godbolt’s friend, Priscilla Ham, who identified Baccus as the suspect and provided information about his vehicle. Officer Barry Prosser, upon investigating, observed Baccus's vehicle near a convenience store with evidence of blood and a smoldering burn pile at Baccus's home. He later arrested Baccus at his residence. 

At a pretrial suppression hearing, Officer Amber McDaniel testified that she was informed of the situation and completed an affidavit for a search warrant based on the information from Turbeville, although she lacked specific details about the homicide at the time. The court affirmed Baccus’s conviction and sentence, certifying the appeal from the Court of Appeals.

Clothing, shoes, and a vehicle key were seized from Appellant's residence following a search warrant execution. Prior to trial, the State secured a court order for Appellant to provide a blood sample, which was subsequently drawn. Expert testimony was provided by Michelle Dixon, who found the victim in a rear bedroom with a broken window and observed bloody shoe impressions leading to a side door. Dixon noted that fingerprints found on the window sill matched Appellant's. Another expert, John Black, confirmed that the shoes seized from Appellant matched the bloody shoeprints at the crime scene. Dr. Steve Lambert, an expert in DNA analysis, testified that Appellant's blood matched samples found in the victim's home, including on a door, bed sheet, and blind, and that a blood swab from a cut on Appellant's palm also matched those samples.

Appellant sought to suppress evidence based on three arguments: 1) the arrest lacked probable cause; 2) the search warrant was supported by an insufficient affidavit; and 3) the blood evidence obtained was through an unlawful search and seizure. The trial judge denied these motions. The issues raised include whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence related to the arrest without probable cause, whether the search warrant evidence was admissible despite the affidavit's alleged insufficiency, and whether the blood evidence was improperly obtained. The appellate court reviews legal errors in criminal cases, deferring to the trial court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. Appellant claimed the arrest was illegal and sought to suppress evidence obtained thereafter as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," but the court maintained that the key question was the existence of probable cause for the arrest.

Probable cause for a warrantless arrest is established when an officer has sufficient knowledge to reasonably believe a crime has been committed by the individual arrested. The determination of probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the arrest. In this case, Officer Prosser had probable cause for a warrantless arrest of the Appellant based on reliable information from Turbeville regarding a homicide and personal observations, including the presence of a red substance on the Appellant's vehicle and a burn pile with clothing in the Appellant's yard.

Regarding the search warrant, the Appellant claimed it was improperly issued due to a lack of probable cause, arguing that evidence seized from his home (shoes, clothing, and a key) should have been excluded. The court reaffirmed that a search warrant requires a finding of probable cause, which must be assessed through a totality-of-the-circumstances test, as established in Illinois v. Gates. In South Carolina, search warrants must be supported by an affidavit detailing the basis for probable cause to allow for independent judicial evaluation. The affidavit in a related case noted specific details of a robbery, indicating the likelihood that evidence would be found in the suspect's motel room, which echoes the necessity for concrete facts in supporting a warrant claim.

Sgt. Sherman confirmed the information in person on 05/13/88. The affidavit supporting a search warrant for Appellant's residence was deemed defective due to a lack of factual basis regarding why police believed Appellant committed the robbery of the Master Host Inn, relying instead on mere conclusory statements. This was consistent with the precedent set in State v. Weston, where an affidavit was insufficient for establishing probable cause due to similar deficiencies. In the present case, the affidavit specified the search was for evidence related to the homicide of Brenda K. Godbolt and noted a smoldering pile of clothing and a blood-stained vehicle linked to the suspect. However, it failed to provide adequate facts connecting Appellant to the crime, leading to the conclusion that the magistrate lacked a substantial basis for probable cause, resulting in an error by the trial court in admitting the seized evidence.

Additionally, Appellant claimed that the trial court incorrectly refused to suppress blood evidence, arguing that the order compelling the blood sample violated the Fourth Amendment, as well as state law and precedent from Schmerber v. California. Appellant contended the petition lacked the required sworn testimony, warrant, or affidavit to demonstrate probable cause for the blood draw. The State argued that Appellant consented by filing a Brady motion, but this claim was rejected, as filing such a motion does not imply consent to a search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, and obtaining blood from a person constitutes a search unless conducted with a warrant or under exigent circumstances, as established in Schmerber.

A warrant is required to obtain blood solely for determining blood type to match existing evidence, even if a lawful arrest has occurred (Gantt v. State, 354 S.C. 183, 580 S.E.2d 133, 2003). Court orders under Section 17-13-140 for procuring bodily evidence must adhere to constitutional and statutory standards, as established in Schmerber and In re Snyder. Section 17-13-140 allows for search warrants for property linked to a crime, which includes nontestimonial identification evidence. Guidelines for acquiring such evidence were articulated in In re an Investigation into the Death of Abe A., outlining three key elements: probable cause of the suspect's involvement in the crime, a clear indication of the existence of relevant material evidence, and the use of safe and reliable methods for evidence collection. Additional considerations include the seriousness of the crime and the significance of the evidence. Judges must weigh the necessity of obtaining involuntary nontestimonial identification evidence against constitutional protections against unreasonable bodily intrusions. The court may issue an order for evidence from unarrested suspects based on probable cause, in compliance with statutory and constitutional provisions. Fourth Amendment protections remain applicable post-arrest, emphasizing that lawful arrest does not justify warrantless bodily intrusions. Consequently, any court order for evidence collection from an arrested suspect must meet established legal criteria, including a sworn affidavit confirming probable cause, which was not present in the record. Furthermore, no exigent circumstances justified a bodily intrusion without a warrant or an appropriate order under Section 17-13-140.

Exigent circumstances justified blood alcohol testing in Schmerber, establishing a precedent for evidence seizure under potential imminent destruction. The trial judge erred in not suppressing Appellant's blood evidence due to non-compliance with constitutional and statutory standards, as outlined in State v. Khingratsaiphon, which mandates exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Upon reviewing the record, it was determined that despite the erroneous admission of blood evidence and evidence from the search warrant, these errors were harmless as the conviction was supported by other competent evidence. Specifically, testimony from a witness, Ham, indicated that Appellant threatened the victim, and matching fingerprints were found at the crime scene. Furthermore, blood evidence collected from Appellant matched that found at the victim's residence. Citing State v. Haselden and State v. Schumpert, the court concluded that the improper evidence was merely cumulative and did not affect the outcome. The trial judge's admission of evidence from the warrantless arrest was deemed proper. Ultimately, despite the noted errors, the conviction was affirmed due to the harmless nature of the errors. Appellant's other arguments regarding the search warrant were abandoned on appeal, as per established procedural rules.