State v. Armfield

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.

Allen Armfield, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-559 

Submitted December 1, 2011 – Filed
December 13, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, 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 Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Allen Armfield appeals his conviction for
second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  Armfield argues the trial
court erred in admitting his statement into evidence and refusing to give the
jury his requested jury charge.  We affirm.[1]

1.  We find the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Armfield's statement to
police.  A trial court's factual findings as to the voluntariness of a
statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of
discretion.  State v. Von Dohlen, 322 S.C. 234, 243, 471 S.E.2d 689, 695 (1996).  Among these circumstances, the court may
consider police coercion; the length of interrogation; its location; its
continuity; and the defendant's maturity, education, and mental health.  State
v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 601, 683 S.E.2d 500, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) (citing Winthrow
v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 693 (1993)).  Here, the evidence presented
establishes Armfield freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police. 
Initially, Armfield's interview with police lasted only forty minutes and
within ten minutes Armfield had confessed to police.  Additionally, when
Armfield arrived at the interview, he was neither confined to the interview
room nor was he under arrest.  Further, Armfield admits he was never threatened
with physical harm.  Moreover, as a fifty-three-year-old man with twelve years
of education, Armfield's personal characteristics do not present any
circumstances that would make him more susceptible to making an involuntary
statement due to coercion.  Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
admitting Armfield's statement.

2.  Because the trial court
is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina, we
find the trial court did not err in refusing Armfield's improper bolstering
jury charge.  State v. Burkhart, 350 S.C. 252, 261, 565 S.E.2d 298, 303
(2002).    

AFFIRMED.

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

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