State v. Whitehead ( 2012 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(D)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Christopher Ryan Whitehead, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2008-103966
Appeal From Kershaw County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-526
Heard June 19, 2012 – Filed September 12, 2012
AFFIRMED
Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, and
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, both of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney
General Melody Jane Brown, all of Columbia, and
Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Christopher Whitehead appeals from his convictions of murder
and burglary in the first degree, arguing the trial court erred in (1) allowing into
evidence the statements of his two non-testifying co-defendants without adequately
redacting their claims of his involvement because it denied him of his right to
confront and cross-examine the witnesses; and (2) not directing a verdict acquitting
him of murder and burglary because the State's evidence established nothing more
than a mere suspicion of guilt.
Josh Zoch died from multiple blunt force trauma to his head after being beaten
with a baseball bat the night of December 12, 2006. Zoch, Whitehead, Derrick
McDonald, and Robert Cannon all worked at the same Sonic Restaurant at one
time. McDonald and Cannon both gave statements to police admitting their and
Whitehead's involvement in the murder. Whitehead, McDonald, and Cannon were
tried together as co-defendants in May 2008. None of the three co-defendants
testified at trial. The jury found all three guilty, and the trial court sentenced
Whitehead to two concurrent sentences of life without parole for murder and first-
degree burglary due to his 2005 guilty plea to attempted armed robbery. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to Whitehead's argument that the trial court erred in allowing
McDonald's and Cannon's statements into evidence without adequately redacting
the portions of their statements implicating Whitehead because it denied him his
right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses: State v. McDonald, Op. No.
5033 (S.C. Ct. App. filed September 12, 2012) (finding the neutral phrase "another
person" inserted into Cannon's statement avoided any Bruton v. United States, 391
U.S. 123 (1968), violation because the redacted statement only implicated the
statement's maker, and did not limit the participants to three, which would
implicate the three defendants on trial; therefore, the trial court properly allowed
Cannon's redacted statement into evidence).
2. As to Whitehead's argument that the trial court erred in not directing a
verdict acquitting him of murder and burglary because the State's evidence only
established a mere suspicion of guilt: State v. Kelsey, 331 S.C. 50, 62, 502 S.E.2d
63, 69 (1998) (stating the trial court is concerned with the existence of evidence
rather than its weight when considering a directed verdict motion); State v.
Sanders, 388 S.C. 292, 299, 696 S.E.2d 592, 596 (Ct. App. 2009) ("'In reviewing
the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the
light most favorable to the State, and if there is any direct evidence or any
substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove the guilt of the
accused, an appellate court must find that the case was properly submitted to the
jury.'" (quoting Kelsey, 331 S.C. at 62, 502 S.E.2d at 69)); State v. Cherry, 361
S.C. 588, 594, 606 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004) ("[A] trial judge is not required to find
that the evidence infers guilt to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis.").
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.