State v. Kronsberg

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.

Robert T. Kronsberg, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002682

Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-444
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 26, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and
Assistant Attorney General Susannah Rawl Cole, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 381, 652 S.E.2d 444, 450 (Ct. App. 2007)
("Under Jackson v. Denno, [378 U.S. 368 (1964),] a defendant is entitled to a
'reliable determination as to the voluntariness of his [statement] by a tribunal other
than the jury charged with deciding his guilt or innocence.'" (second alteration in
original) (quoting State v. Fortner, 266 S.C. 223, 226, 222 S.E.2d 508, 510
(1976))); id. at 382, 652 S.E.2d at 450 ("The State bears the burden of showing the
statement was voluntary."); id. at 378, 652 S.E.2d at 448 ("On appeal, the
conclusion of the trial [court] as to the voluntariness of a statement will not be
reversed unless so erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); id. at 378-79,
652 S.E.2d at 448 ("[T]he appellate court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its
own view of the preponderance of the evidence, but simply determines whether the
trial [court's] ruling is supported by any evidence.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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