State v. Benton
Opinion No. 5868 (2021)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Double jeopardy does not bar retrial when a mistrial is properly declared due to manifest necessity, such as a defendant's unannounced alibi defense that prejudices the State. Digital communications can be authenticated by circumstantial evidence, including content, timing, and distinctive characteristics, even if ownership of the device is not sole proof. Gruesome crime scene photographs are admissible if their probative value on essential elements like malice is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Facts:
- Charles Bryant Smith owned properties in Horry County, often carried large sums of cash, and distrusted banks.
- Garland Rose, one of Smith's employees, informed Tommy Lee Benton and Mitchell Cheatham that Smith often had significant cash.
- Benton, Garland Rose, and Cheatham devised a plan to rob Smith.
- On April 18, 2014, Benton and Garland Rose broke into Smith's Aynor home and stole approximately $27,000 in cash, while Cheatham remained in the car.
- On April 25, 2014, Benton, Cheatham, and Justin Travis met Douglas Thomas and planned another robbery of Smith at his store, believing he kept $100,000 in a safe.
- In the early morning of April 26, 2014, Benton, Thomas, and Travis broke into Smith's store and set it on fire when Smith did not arrive as expected.
- In the early morning of April 29, 2014, Benton, Thomas, and Cheatham drove to Smith's mobile home, beat and handcuffed Smith, ransacked and robbed the home, set it on fire, and left Smith handcuffed inside to die.
- Firemen responding to the mobile home fire found a handcuffed body inside the burnt trailer and alerted police; Investigator Jill Domogauer found handcuffs, rope, casings, and a safe containing $120,000 in cash at the scene.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 21, 2016, the Horry County grand jury indicted Tommy Lee Benton for the murder of Charles Bryant Smith.
- On October 26, 2016, the grand jury further indicted Benton for two counts of first-degree burglary, first-degree arson, and third-degree arson.
- The case initially went to trial on July 17, 2017, and the jury was sworn on July 18, 2017.
- During his opening statement, Benton's counsel began to discuss an alibi defense without providing the State with prior written notice as required by Rule 5 of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- The State objected, and the circuit court (Judge Steven H. John) declared a mistrial as a matter of manifest necessity and ordered Benton to serve the State with written notice of his intent to offer an alibi defense.
- At Benton's request, the circuit court held a hearing the following day, where Benton argued the State's Rule 5 request was insufficient for not including the exact times of the alleged offenses.
- The circuit court denied Benton's request for further information, finding the State had sufficiently complied with Rule 5(e)(1) through discovery and reaffirmed the requirement for strict compliance from both parties.
- Pretrial on December 4, 2017, Benton moved to dismiss the indictments, asserting that double jeopardy prevented him from standing trial because there was no justification for the prior mistrial.
- The circuit court reaffirmed its prior rulings and denied Benton's motion to dismiss the indictments.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does double jeopardy bar retrial when a circuit court declares a mistrial based on manifest necessity due to a defendant's failure to provide notice of an alibi defense? 2. Did the circuit court err in admitting text and Facebook messages into evidence without proper authentication, or gruesome crime scene photographs when their probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice?
Opinions:
Majority - McDonald, J.
No, double jeopardy did not bar Benton's retrial, and the circuit court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence. A properly granted mistrial based on manifest necessity does not trigger double jeopardy. Here, manifest necessity existed because Benton's counsel raised an alibi defense in opening statements without providing the required Rule 5 notice to the State. The circuit court determined that excluding the alibi witnesses would violate Benton's right to present a defense, but allowing them without prior notice would unfairly prejudice the State. Thus, a mistrial was the only reasonable option to balance the parties' rights. The court found that the State had sufficiently complied with its Rule 5 obligations by providing information in discovery regarding the time, date, and place of the alleged offenses, even if the alibi request itself lacked an exact time. Benton was not prejudiced by the mistrial as he was able to present his alibi witnesses at the subsequent trial. Regarding the admission of text and Facebook messages, the circuit court properly admitted them based on circumstantial evidence, despite its initial erroneous reliance solely on phone ownership. Authentication under Rule 901(b)(4) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence allows for distinctive characteristics and surrounding circumstances to prove authenticity. The timing, content, and distinctive language (e.g., Benton's affectionate messages to his girlfriend, Heather, and discussions about the crimes with Cheatham) provided sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could find Benton authored the messages during the relevant periods. Although authentication for some Facebook messages was problematic, their admission was harmless error as they were cumulative to other trial testimony. Finally, the circuit court did not err in admitting the crime scene photographs of Smith's burned body. While gruesome, these photographs were highly probative of malice, an essential element of murder, and corroborated Cheatham's testimony that Smith was restrained with handcuffs when the house was set on fire. The State's burden to prove every element of the crime is not relieved by a defendant's stipulation or decision not to contest certain facts. The probative value of these photographs was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rule 403, SCRE.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the double jeopardy clause in the context of mistrials due to discovery violations, emphasizing that manifest necessity is a fact-specific inquiry. It reinforces that courts must balance the defendant's right to present a defense against the State's right to adequate preparation, supporting the use of mistrial as a last resort when less severe remedies are insufficient. The decision also provides important guidance on authenticating digital evidence, confirming that circumstantial evidence related to content, context, and behavior is crucial, moving beyond mere device ownership. Furthermore, it reiterates that gruesome crime scene photos are admissible if they are highly probative of an essential element of the crime, underscoring the State's right to prove its case fully.
