State v. Wilson

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.

Jake Antonio Wilson, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-099

Submitted February 1, 2012 – Filed
February 22, 2012   

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L.
Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald
Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jake
Antonio Wilson appeals his conviction for murder and possession of a firearm
during the commission of a violent crime.  On appeal, Wilson contends the trial
court erred in allowing testimony that Wilson had changed his mind and
exercised his right to counsel after he had initially waived his rights,
thereby violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as applied in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976).  We
affirm.[1]  

Doyle recognized evidence of post-arrest silence can be
introduced by the prosecution when used to challenge
the defendant's testimony as to his behavior following arrest.  State
v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 39, 599 S.E.2d 448, 451 (2004).  When
post-arrest silence is not offered as substantive
evidence of guilt, there is no violation of the fundamental fairness standard
of Doyle.  Id. at 40-41, 599 S.E.2d at 451.  Here, evidence exists that the testimony the trial
court allowed was not introduced as substantive evidence of guilt.  Rather, the
testimony was introduced to show Wilson's statement to police was voluntary and
to challenge Wilson's testimony that he was too intimidated to request
counsel.  Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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