State v. Putnam

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.

Martina Putnam, Appellant.

Appeal From Sumter County

George C. James, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-526

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 2, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H.
Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Martina
Putnam appeals her conviction for homicide by child abuse, arguing the trial
court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she made to police
officers without Miranda[1] warnings in the waiting rooms of two hospitals where her baby was receiving
treatment.  We affirm[2] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: State
v. Evans, 354 S.C. 579, 583, 582
S.E.2d 407, 409 (2003) ("Appellate review of whether a person is in
custody is confined to a determination of whether the ruling by the trial
[court] is supported by the record."); State
v. Navy, 386 S.C. 294, 301, 688 S.E.2d
838, 841 (2010) ("Whether a suspect is in custody is determined by an
examination of the totality of the circumstances, such as the location,
purpose, and length of interrogation, and whether the suspect was free to leave
the place of questioning."); id. (stating the determination of
custody is objective, namely "would a reasonable person have believed he
was in custody"); State v. Easler, 327 S.C. 121, 128, 489 S.E.2d
617, 621 (1997) ("The initial determination of whether an individual was
in custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not the
subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person
being questioned."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

[2] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.