State v. Bixby, 388 S.C. 528

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed Steven V. Bixby's convictions and death sentences for the murders of an Abbeville County deputy sheriff and magistrate's constable, along with related convictions. The court rejected challenges concerning jury qualification, exclusion of title-record evidence, an emergency wiretap, testimony about a property dispute, and other guilt- and penalty-phase issues. The opinion held that several claims were procedurally barred or meritless and upheld the trial court's rulings.

Holdings

1. The limitation on defense counsel's questioning did not constitute reversible error, and the claim was procedurally barred because counsel failed to exhaust all available peremptory strikes and did not challenge the jurors who were ultimately seated.
2. The trial court properly excluded the title abstractor's testimony because his incomplete search did not make the asserted facts more or less probable and, alternatively, the evidence was properly excluded under Rule 403, SCRE.
3. The emergency wiretap provisions of S.C. Code section 17-30-95 are constitutional under the exigent-circumstances doctrine; SLED complied with the statutory notification requirements; and the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing.
4. The jury charge adequately stated that the State had the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt because disproving any one of the four elements defeats the defense.
5. The funeral videotape was admissible victim-impact evidence under Payne v. Tennessee and was not subject to exclusion under Rule 403, SCRE or the statutory prohibition against death sentences imposed under passion, prejudice, or an arbitrary factor.
6. Compelling a capital defendant to undergo a mental-health evaluation after he indicated an intent to present mental-health mitigation did not violate the Fifth Amendment when procedural safeguards protected against disclosure of inculpatory statements.
7. Bixby was not entitled to transactional immunity because he was not compelled to testify against himself during the mental-health evaluation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether limiting defense counsel's voir dire questions concerning the legal definition of murder required reversal.
2. Whether excluding a title abstractor's testimony concerning his search for right-of-way records was reversible error.
3. Whether South Carolina's emergency wiretap statute violated the Fourth Amendment or the South Carolina Constitution, whether SLED complied with the statute, and whether the court of appeals abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing.
4. Whether excluding testimony concerning Rita Bixby's prior property disputes in New Hampshire was reversible error.
5. Whether testimony about Rita Bixby's out-of-court statements was admissible under Rule 613(b), SCRE.
6. Whether the jury charge adequately informed the jury that the State bore the burden of disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. Whether admitting a videotape of Deputy Wilson's funeral during the penalty phase violated the governing capital-sentencing statute or the Eighth Amendment.
8. Whether compelling a mental-health evaluation after Bixby indicated an intent to present mental-health mitigation violated the Fifth Amendment or entitled him to transactional immunity.

Disposition

affirmed