Careful what you say
In State v. Wiley, decided March 31, the S.C. Court of Appeals held that the State's arguments to the jury in opening and closing, that 1) the defendant had an outstanding warrant when he was arrested, and 2) the defendant did not challenge the lawfulness of the search, were either harmless error or that a curative instruction given by the judge was enough to cure any error. Wiley was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and sentenced to 25 years.
One thing that jumped out at me in the opinion was the Court's statement that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included the defendant's statement to the trial court: "I guess I want to apologize to the Court for getting myself in this trouble. I should have known better than what I was doing. I had numerous opportunities to stop. I just want to apologize to the Court." As in State v. Sroka, cited by the Court, "any doubt about correctness of guilt was eliminated by the admission of appellant in open court, after conviction and during the pre-sentence inquiry by the trial judge."
The point here is that, if the defendant wants any chance at appeal or post conviction relief, the best practice is to say nothing during the sentencing hearing. If the defendant still proclaims his innocence after a jury has found him guilty, it is not going to endear him to the judge. On the other hand, if the defendant admits his guilt, that admission will be used against him by the Court of Appeals and possibly at any re-trial of the case.
