Background
Shots were fired at a birthday party in Fairfield County. Cortez Javar Whitener was charged with breach of the peace of a high and aggravated nature (BPHAN) and unlawful carrying of a pistol under S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-20(A)(10). The State’s evidence included Whitener’s own confession, and at the close of the State’s case Whitener moved for a directed verdict, arguing the State had not met its burden of establishing the corpus delicti of each charge independently of his uncorroborated extra-judicial confession. The trial court denied the motion, and Whitener was convicted on both counts. He appealed.
The Court’s Holding
Affirmed. The Court of Appeals held the State independently established the corpus delicti for both charges through evidence other than Whitener’s confession.
BPHAN: The elements of the corpus delicti for a breach of the peace of a high and aggravated nature are: (1) disturbing the public tranquility (2) by an act or conduct inciting to violence (3) in a high and aggravated nature. State v. Simms, 412 S.C. 590 (2015). On the first element, Whitener’s own counsel conceded in closing argument that “there was a breach of the peace.” Independent of that concession, an investigating officer testified the scene was “pandemonium” with over fifty people running around after gunshots were fired, and a witness testified she drove into a ditch because of the gunshots. On the second element, multiple witnesses testified they heard or saw gunshots, and shell casings were found near the party. On the high-and-aggravated element, the court held that firing a gun in a crowded area supports that elevation, consistent with State v. Simms’s recognition that “a wide variety of factual circumstances” can elevate simple breach of peace to BPHAN.
Unlawful Carrying of a Pistol: The corpus delicti under section 16-23-20(A)(10) requires: (1) carrying a handgun (2) in a residence or dwelling place of another person (3) without the owner’s or legal possessor’s express permission. Two pieces of independent evidence established this corpus delicti. First, the birthday party host testified that guests were not permitted to bring guns to the party — satisfying the “without permission” element. Second, a recording of a jail phone call in which Whitener admitted to his mother that he was “carrying a gun on his person while at the party” — while itself an extra-judicial statement — when viewed alongside the host’s testimony, supplied sufficient independent corroboration of each element. The court also noted that direct evidence of the corpus delicti is not required; circumstantial evidence suffices.
Key Takeaways
- South Carolina requires independent corroboration of the corpus delicti before a conviction may rest on an extra-judicial confession. The State must show through evidence other than the defendant’s own out-of-court statements that the specific offense actually occurred.
- The corpus delicti standard does not require independent proof of the defendant’s identity as the guilty party — only proof that the crime itself was committed. Evidence that an offense occurred (a gun was fired at a party, guests lacked permission to bring weapons) suffices to set the stage for the confession to identify the defendant as the actor.
- Concessions made by defense counsel in closing argument can themselves establish corpus delicti elements. Here, defense counsel’s acknowledgment that “there was a breach of the peace” waived any argument that the State failed to prove the foundational breach-of-peace component of the BPHAN charge.
- A jail phone call in which the defendant admits to conduct can serve as a corroborating statement alongside independent evidence. While the call itself may be another extra-judicial statement, it is admissible evidence that, combined with third-party testimony, can establish the elements of a crime.
Why It Matters
State v. Whitener provides a useful illustration of how South Carolina courts apply the corpus delicti rule in the context of firearm offenses arising from public disturbances. The decision confirms that the rule does not demand elaborate independent proof of every element of the charged offense — witness accounts of shots fired, pandemonium, and a no-guns policy at the venue are sufficient predicates to allow the defendant’s own admission to complete the evidentiary picture.
For South Carolina criminal defense practitioners, the case is a reminder that a directed verdict motion attacking corpus delicti must demonstrate that the State’s independent evidence is legally insufficient on each element — not merely that the most compelling evidence is the defendant’s own statement. Where the State has witnesses who observed the crime and a party host who can testify about permission policies, the corpus delicti threshold will ordinarily be met. Defense counsel should also be cautious about tactical concessions in closing argument; acknowledging a breach of the peace to focus the jury’s attention elsewhere effectively eliminates an argument that corpus delicti was unmet on that element.