Payne v. State, 355 S.C. 642

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Geoffrey Payne’s application for post-conviction relief. The court held that a codefendant’s counsel indirectly commented on Payne’s decision not to testify, satisfying the deficiency prong of the ineffective-assistance analysis, but that Payne was not prejudiced because the evidence of his murder conviction was overwhelming. A separate concurrence agreed with the result but disagreed that the closing argument impermissibly referenced Payne’s silence.

Holdings

1. A codefendant's counsel is subject to the same prohibition against direct or indirect commentary on a defendant's right to remain silent as the State and the court. The closing argument indirectly referred to Payne's decision to remain silent.
2. Payne established deficient performance because his counsel failed to object to the improper indirect comment on Payne's constitutional right not to testify.
3. Payne was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to object because overwhelming evidence established that he murdered the victim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a codefendant's counsel indirectly commented on Payne's constitutional right to remain silent by emphasizing the codefendant's willingness to testify.
2. Whether Payne's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to that comment.
3. Whether the failure to object prejudiced Payne in light of the evidence against him.

Disposition

affirmed