State v. Washington, 370 S.E.2d 611 (S.C. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Washington, 370 S.E.2d 611 (S.C. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
104 citation events (84 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Chad L. Simmons, No. 2022-001729 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2025)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
370 S.E.2d at 612 Determining statement admissibility by preponderance standard14 citing cases
  • State v. Chad L. Simmons, No. 2022-001729 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2025).unpublished 3 cites
    See State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 136 , 551 S.E.2d 240, 252 (2001) ("If a defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, but nevertheless chose to make a statement, the 'burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that…
  • State v. Brewer, No. 2017-002563 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2020).unpublished
    "If a defendant was advised of h[er] Miranda rights[] but chose to make a statement anyway, the 'burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that h[er] rights were voluntarily waived.'" Id. (quoting State v. Washingt…
  • State v. Fullbright, No. 2014-UP-399 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2014).unpublished
    As to whether law enforcement obtained Fullbright's statements in violation of his right against self-incrimination: Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 (1972) (stating that when the prosecution seeks to use "a confession challenged as invol…
  • State v. Simmons, 682 S.E.2d 19 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).published
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988).
  • State v. Dye, 681 S.E.2d 23 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).published
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988).
  • State v. Parker, 671 S.E.2d 619 (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).published 2 cites
    State v. Miller, 375 S.C. 370, 378 , 652 S.E.2d 444, 448 (Ct.App.2007) (citing State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 55, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988); State v. Smith, 268 S.C. 349, 354 , 234 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1977)); State v. Arrowood, 375 S.C. 35…
  • State v. Miller, 652 S.E.2d 444 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007).published 4 cites
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 55, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988); State v. Smith, 268 S.C. 349, 354 , 234 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1977).
  • State v. Arrowood, 652 S.E.2d 438 (S.C. Ct. App. 2007).published 2 cites
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 55, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988); State v. Smith, 268 S.C. 349, 354 , 234 S.E.2d 19, 21 (1977).
  • State v. Santiago, 634 S.E.2d 23 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006).published 2 cites
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 55-56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988) (citing State v. Drayton, 287 S.C. 226 , 337 S.E.2d 216 (1985); State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115 , 283 S.E.2d 582 (1981)).
  • State v. Ledford, 567 S.E.2d 904 (S.C. Ct. App. 2002).published
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 55-56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988).
Show 4 more citing cases
  • State v. Kennedy, 479 S.E.2d 838 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996).published
    Washington, 296 S.C. at 55-56 , 370 S.E.2d at 612 (emphasis in original).
  • State v. Wells, 426 S.E.2d 814 (S.C. Ct. App. 1992).published
    State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 56, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988).
  • State v. Childs, 385 S.E.2d 839 (S.C. 1989).published
    If a defendant was advised of his Miranda rights, but chose to make a statement anyway, the “burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his rights were voluntarily waived.” State v. Washington, 296 S. C. 54, 55…
  • State v. Salisbury, 498 S.E.2d 655 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998).published 2 cites
    See State v. Washington, 296 S.C. 54 , 55, 370 S.E.2d 611, 612 (1988)(quoting Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 619, 627 , 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972)) (“[T]he prosecution must prove ... by a preponderance of the evidence that the con…
The trial [court]'s determination of the voluntariness of a statement must be made on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.no pin page on record · 2 citing cases listed
  • State v. Chad L. Simmons, No. 2022-001729 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2025).unpublished 3 cites
    (The trial [court]'s determination of the voluntariness of a statement must be made on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.)
  • State v. Hayes, No. 2018-UP-457 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2018).unpublished 4 cites
    (The trial [court's] determination of the voluntariness of a statement must be made on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.)
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The STATE
v.
Gary L. WASHINGTON
22889.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Jul 11, 1988.
Published opinion
370 S.E.2d 611
1988 S.C. LEXIS 85
Ralph Hoisington, Deputy Sol., Charleston, for appellant., Andrew J. Savage, III, Patricia A. Kennedy, Charleston, S. C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for respondent.
Chandler, Finney, Gregory, Harwell, Ness.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of South Caro… (5)
Chandler, Justice:

State appeals an Order suppressing statements made to police by defendant. We reverse and remand.

[*55] FACTS

At an in camera hearing during trial, defendant’s motion to suppress his statements for lack of voluntariness was granted. The trial judge based his ruling upon the State’s failure to establish voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

State contends that the standard of proof by which the Court must determine voluntariness is that of preponderance of the evidence only. We agree.

ISSUE

The sole issue is which standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence, should be applied by a trial judge in determining the voluntariness of a criminal defendant’s statement.

DISCUSSION

This issue has been decided in numerous decisions of both our Court and the United States Supreme Court.

“It has been uniformly held, a confession may be introduced upon proof of its voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. ’’State v. Smith, 268 S. C. 349, 354, 234 S. E. (2d) 19, 21 (1977) (Emphasis supplied).

“(T)he burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his rights were voluntarily waived.” State v. Neeley, 271 S. C. 33, 40, 244 S. E. (2d) 522, 526 (1978) (Emphasis supplied).

“(T)he prosecution must prove ... by a preponderance of the evidence that the confession was voluntary.” Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 489, 92 S. Ct. 619, 627, 30 L. Ed. (2d) 618, 627 (1972) (Emphasis supplied).

See also Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U. S. 515, 107 S. Ct. 515, 93 L. Ed. (2d) 473 (1986); State v. Middleton, 295 S. C. 318, 368 S. E. (2d) 457 (1988); In re Christopher W., 285 S. C. 329, 329 S. E. (2d) 769 (Ct. App. 1985).

Defendant cites State v. Peake, 291 S. C. 138, 352 S. E. (2d) 487 (1987) to support the trial judge’s application of the reasonable doubt standard in determining voluntariness of his confession. Reliance upon Peake is misplaced.

True, it is stated in Peake that “(t)he State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the statement[*56] given was voluntary.” This language, however, refers to the State’s burden before the jury only. See State v. Drayton, 287 S. C. 226, 337 S. E. (2d) 216 (1985); State v. Adams, 277 S. C. 115, 283 S. E. (2d) 582 (1981).

CONCLUSION

Where voluntariness of a statement is at issue the trial judge must make an initial determination based upon the preponderance standard. If the statement is found to have been given voluntarily, it is then submitted to the jury, where its voluntariness must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, the trial judge incorrectly applied the reasonable doubt standard in determining whether to suppress the statements. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a proper determination.

Reversed and remanded.

Gregory, C. J., and Harwell, Finney, JJ., and J. B. Ness, Acting Associate Justice, concur.