State v. Mesidor

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.

Jaqueline Latrisha Mesidor, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001160

Appeal From Sumter County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-341
Submitted June 1, 2018 – Filed July 25, 2018

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of
Sumter, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jaqueline Latrisha Mesidor appeals her conviction for leaving
the scene of an accident involving death, arguing the trial court erred in admitting
her statement to police. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 378, 652 S.E.2d 444, 448 (Ct.
App. 2007) ("The trial [court] determines the admissibility of a statement upon
proof of its voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence."); State v. Moses,
390 S.C. 502, 510-11, 702 S.E.2d 395, 399 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he trial [court's]
ruling as to the voluntariness of [a statement] will not be disturbed unless so
erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Myers, 359 S.C.
40, 47, 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004))); State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390, 398, 673
S.E.2d 434, 438 (2009) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of
the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.");
State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 200, 391 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1990) ("Once a
voluntary waiver of the Miranda[2] rights is made, that waiver continues until the
individual being questioned indicates that [she] wants to revoke the waiver and
remain silent or circumstances exist which establish that [her] 'will has been
overborne and [her] capacity for self-determination critically impaired.'" (quoting
State v. Moultrie, 273 S.C. 60, 62, 254 S.E.2d 294, 295 (1979))); Miller, 375 S.C.
at 384, 652 S.E.2d at 451 ("The test of voluntariness is '"whether a defendant's will
was overborne" by the circumstances surrounding the given [statement].'"
(alteration in original) (quoting Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434
(2000))); id. at 385, 652 S.E.2d at 451 (stating the trial court's "determination of
the voluntariness of a statement must be made on the basis of the totality of the
circumstances" (quoting State v. Ledford, 351 S.C. 83, 87, 567 S.E.2d 904, 906
(Ct. App. 2002))); Moses, 390 S.C. at 513-14, 702 S.E.2d at 401 (setting forth the
following factors that trial courts may consider "in a totality of the circumstances
analysis: background; experience; conduct of the accused; age; maturity; physical
condition and mental health; length of custody or detention; police
misrepresentations; isolation of a minor from his or her parent; the lack of any
advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; threats of violence; direct or
indirect promises, however slight; lack of education or low intelligence; repeated
and prolonged nature of the questioning; exertion of improper influence; and the
use of physical punishment, such as the deprivation of food or sleep"); Miller, 375
S.C. at 386, 652 S.E.2d at 452 ("Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to
finding a statement is not voluntary. Coercion is determined from the perspective
of the suspect." (citations omitted)); id. at 387, 652 S.E.2d at 453 (finding
statements were not made as a consequence of a promise when the defendant did
not testify during the pretrial Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964), hearing and
the only person who testified he was promised a certain sentence was his attorney);

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
State v. Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 602-03, 683 S.E.2d 500, 508 (Ct. App. 2009)
(finding officers "did not create an environment that caused [the defendant's] will
[to be] overborne" despite their "numerous emotional appeals relating to [the
defendant's] family" and under the totality of the circumstances "evidence exist[ed]
to support the trial court's determination that the statements were voluntary").

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.