David Mark Hill

Executed June 6, 2006 06:17 p.m. by Lethal Injection in South Carolina


5th murderer executed in U.S. in 2008
1104th murderer executed in U.S. since 1976
1st murderer executed in South Carolina in 2008
38th murderer executed in South Carolina since 1976


Since 1976
Date of Execution
State
Method
Murderer
(Race/Sex/Age at Murder-Execution)
Date of
Birth
Victim(s)
(Race/Sex/Age at Murder)
Date of
Murder
Method of
Murder
Relationship
to Murderer
Date of
Sentence
1104
06-06-08
SC
Lethal Injection
David Mark Hill

W / M / 36 - 48

05-24-60
Jimmy Riddle
W / M / 52
Josie Curry
B / F / 35
Michael Gregory
W / M / 30
09-16-96
Handgun
None
02-15-00

Summary:
On September 16, 1996, Hill walked into the Aiken County Department of Social Services office in North Augusta and shot to death his family's case worker and two other employees after losing custody of his children. Hill was found a day later in a wooded area, suffering from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. He had a bullet hole through the roof of his mouth and an exit wound in the top of his skull. At the time, Hill was married and had three children: a three-year-old daughter who was a quadriplegic from a traffic accident, and twin two-year-old boys. DSS had become involved with the family because of concern about the parents’ abuse of prescription drugs. The children were eventually removed from the home.

Citations:
Hill v. State, 377 S.C. 462, 661 S.E.2d 92(S.C. 2008) (PCR).
State v. Hill, 361 S.C. 297, 604 S.E.2d 696 (S.C. 2004) (Direct Appeal).

Final Meal:
Meatloaf, corn on the cob, garlic bread, a beef burrito, a Mexican pizza, a taco, cake, ice cream, garden salad with tomatoes and ranch dressing, and Pepsi.

Final Words:
"I sincerely apologize to the families of Josie Curry, Michael Gregory, and James Riddle. I am very sorry for the pain that my actions caused to them. Hopefully, my decision to have this sentence carried out, without delay, will help you understand the sincerity of my apology, and will provide you with some closure. To those of you who have expressed forgiveness to me, I thank you. For those of you who have been unable or unwilling to forgive me, I pray that today will provide you with the peace you deserve."

Internet Sources:

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Inmate: Hill, David M.
SCDC ID 00005070
DOB: 05/24/60
Race: White
County of Conviction: Aiken
Received: 02/15/00
Judge: Marc H. Westbrook

TheState.Com

"Man Executed for Killing 3 Social Services Workers," by Meg Kinnard. (AP June 07, 2008)

A man who gunned down three people in a Department of Social Services office in 1996 was executed by lethal injection Friday.

David Mark Hill, pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m. in the state’s death chamber in Columbia, was the first person put to death in South Carolina since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in April the constitutionality of the three-drug lethal-injection cocktail used in dozens of states.

Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers.

Killed were caseworkers Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.

The state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that the 48-year-old, who was on Death Row for eight years, could drop his appeals and be executed.

Hill’s lawyer, David Miller, read a statement from Hill that said he was sorry for the killings and hoped his victims’ relatives would find peace. “Hopefully, my decision to have this sentence carried out without delay will help you understand the sincerity of my apology and will provide you with some closure. To those of you who have expressed forgiveness to me, I thank you. For those of you who have been unable or unwilling to forgive me, I pray that today will provide you with the peace you deserve,” said Miller, reading from the statement.

Unlike other states, South Carolina did not put executions on hold while the court considered the case. Hill was the 279th person put to death in South Carolina.

Hill, clad in a dark green prison uniform and strapped to a gurney, briefly turned his head toward the witnesses, then trained his eyes on the ceiling of the brick-walled chamber. When the attorney finished speaking, a tube that ran from Hill’s outstretched left arm to the wall behind his head began to move and liquid could be seen flowing through it. Two minutes later, Hill’s breathing became labored, and he then took one large gasp, his chest heaving upward. Hill’s mouth then dropped open, and, within a minute, color drained from his face. Eleven minutes later, Hill was pronounced dead.

Relatives of the victims sat in the front row of the viewing area outside the death chamber and showed no visible reaction to the execution. They declined to comment. A handful of death penalty protesters held a vigil outside the prison where the death chamber is housed.

For his last meal, Hill was served meatloaf, corn on the cob, garlic bread, a beef burrito, a Mexican pizza, a taco, cake, ice cream, garden salad with tomatoes and ranch dressing, and Pepsi, according to the Department of Corrections.

WJBF-TV

"Hill Asks For Victims' Families Forgiveness Before Execution," by Joy Howe. (June 07, 2008)

Columbia, SC -- Three people were murdered by David Mark Hill, back in September 1996. Three family members came Friday to witness the execution of the man who took their loved ones away. Hill's last request was to them...it was for forgiveness.

More than a decade ago, three lives were taken: Josie Curry...Michael Gregory...and James Riddle. They were in the path of a man who said he just snapped. Friday, three members of the victims' families watched as a cocktail of lethal drugs was inserted into David Mark Hill's arm. Family members chose not to share their feelings, but other witnesses told the story:

Meg Kinnard, witness: "He had his eyes closed, he did not look over at us, or make any kind of gestures to any of us behind the glass." It was his request to be put to death...12 years ago, his victims were shot to death. Friday, Hill fell asleep...forever.

Kinnard: "No real reaction from anyone in the chamber, from the families, or anyone else." Mike Gellatly, witness: "As dignified, I guess, as you would hope a situation like this would be."

Hill's final statement was read aloud: David Mark Hill's final statement: "I sincerely apologize to the families of Josie Curry, Michael Gregory, and James Riddle. I am very sorry for the pain that my actions caused to them. Hopefully, my decision to have this sentence carried out, without delay, will help you understand the sincerity of my apology, and will provide you with some closure. To those of you who have expressed forgiveness to me, I thank you. For those of you who have been unable or unwilling to forgive me, I pray that today will provide you with the peace you deserve."

The families may or may not see this as closure, but Friday, they saw justice. After the execution was over, Department of Corrections officials gave out a list of Hill's last meal request, and announced his death at 6:17 p.m., Friday night.

Hill was the 279th person to be executed in the state of South Carolina.

Aiken Standard

"David Mark Hill put to death," by Mike Gellatly. (6/7/2008)

COLUMBIA -- The man convicted of gunning down three Department of Social Services employees as an act of revenge was put to death Friday. David Mark Hill was pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m. after a lethal injection was administered in the Department of Correction's Capital Punishment Chamber in Columbia.

Just before the sentence was administered, Hill's attorney David Miller, standing beside his client, read the condemned man's last statement. "I sincerely apologize to the families of Josie Curry, Michael Gregory and James Riddle. I am very sorry for the pain that my actions caused to them," the statement began. "Hopefully, my decision to have this sentence carried out without delay will help you understand the sincerity of my apology and will provide you with some closure. To those of you who have expressed forgiveness to me, I thank you. For those of you who have been unable or unwilling to forgive me, I pray that today will provide you with the peace you deserve."

Three members of the victims' families attended the execution but were not identified. Representatives of law enforcement and the solicitor's office were also present. Once the injection began, liquid could be seen traveling down a tube into the outstretched, tethered arm of the condemned. Hill made little movement. Strapped with his arms to either side and wearing a prison-issue green jumpsuit, he lay face up staring at the ceiling.

At 6:06 his breathing became labored. He took one large gasp of air and then yawned loudly. His chest did not visibly rise or fall after that; his mouth fell open and his face rapidly became ashen. Minutes later, a doctor appeared from behind a curtain, put a stethoscope to Hill's chest, shone a flashlight in his eyes, turned to the prison officials and nodded. One of these officials then announced that the sentence had been carried out and the time of death was 6:17 p.m.

On Sept. 16, 1996, Hill walked into the North Augusta Department of Social Security satellite office and murdered three DSS employees - Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30. Hill is said to have blamed DSS officials for problems at home with his wife and went to the office to exact revenge.

Hill was the 279th person put to death in South Carolina history.

According to a Department of Correction's spokesperson, Hill's last meal consisted of meat loaf, corn on the cob, garlic bread, a beef burrito, a Mexican pizza, a taco, cake, ice cream, garden salad with tomatoes and ranch dressing and Pepsi.

The Times and Democrat

"Man Executed for Killing 3 Social Services Workers," by Meg Kinnard. (AP June 07, 2008)

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A man who gunned down three people in a Department of Social Services office in 1996 was executed by lethal injection Friday. David Mark Hill, pronounced dead at 6:17 p.m. in the state’s death chamber in Columbia, was the first person put to death in South Carolina since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in April the constitutionality of the three-drug lethal injection cocktail used in dozens of states.

Hill went on the shooting spree in North Augusta after his wife asked for a divorce and a social worker accused him of molesting a child. He lost custody of his children and blamed state workers. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.

The state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year the 48-year-old, who was on death row for eight years, could drop his appeals and be executed.

Hill’s lawyer, David Miller, read a statement from Hill that said he was sorry for the killings and hoped his victims’ relatives would find peace. “Hopefully, my decision to have this sentence carried out without delay will help you understand the sincerity of my apology and will provide you with some closure. To those of you who have expressed forgiveness to me, I thank you. For those of you who have been unable or unwilling to forgive me, I pray that today will provide you with the peace you deserve,” said Miller, reading from the statement.

Unlike other states, South Carolina did not put other executions on hold while the court considered the case. Hill was the 279th person put to death in South Carolina.

Hill, strapped to a gurney and clad in a dark green prison uniform, briefly turned his head toward the witnesses assembled then trained his eyes on the ceiling of the brick-walled chamber. When the attorney finished speaking, a tube that ran from Hill’s outstretched left arm to the wall behind his head began to move and liquid could be seen flowing through it. Two minutes later, Hill’s breathing became labored and he then took one large gasp, his chest heaving upward. Hill’s mouth then dropped open and, within a minute, color drained from his face. Eleven minutes later, Hill was pronounced dead.

Relatives of the victims sat in the front row of the viewing area outside the death chamber and showed no visible reaction to the execution. They declined to comment.

A handful of death penalty protesters held a vigil outside the prison where the death chamber is housed.

For his last meal, Hill was served meat loaf, corn on the cob, garlic bread, a beef burrito, a Mexican pizza, a taco, cake, ice cream, garden salad with tomatoes ranch dressing and Pepsi, according to the Department of Corrections.

Charleston Post & Courier

"S.C. Man Set to be Executed Today; First Since High Court Ruling," by Meg Kinnard (AP June 6, 2008)

COLUMBIA — Nearly 12 years ago, reeling from his wife's request for a divorce and the breakup of his family, David Mark Hill stormed into a North Augusta social services office and gunned down three employees he blamed for taking his children.

After eight years on death row, Hill is set today to become the first person put to death in South Carolina since the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the three-drug lethal injection cocktail used in dozens of states.

Earlier this year, the South Carolina high court ruled that Hill, 48, could drop his appeals and be executed. Hill had argued that he deserves to die for the Sept. 16, 1996, killings, when he walked into a Department of Social Services office in North Augusta and shot to death his family's case worker and two other employees after losing custody of his children. Killed were case worker Jimmy Riddle, 52; Josie Curry, 35; and Michael Gregory, 30.

During his 2000 trial, defense witnesses testified that Hill was prompted to go on the shooting spree hours after his wife asked for a divorce and after a social worker accused him of molesting his quadriplegic daughter, a toddler crippled a year earlier in a car accident. After their daughter's ordeal, Hill was sent into a world of depression, seizures and panic attacks, his wife testified.

Hill overdosed twice on antidepressants and muscle relaxers in the spring of 1996. After social workers said they wanted him out of the house, Hill barricaded himself inside with a shotgun, later spent several days in a mental hospital and was ordered by the state to stay away from his family.

Several months later, he returned to the Social Services office and shot Riddle, Curry and Gregory to death. Authorities found Hill a day later, suffering from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

Since the shootings, the child welfare agency has made some security changes. For several weeks, a police officer was posted at the office, and a security keypad was installed at the main entrance. "You cannot be too careful," spokeswoman Marilyn Matheus said.

Unlike other states, South Carolina did not put any scheduled executions on hold while the court reviewed the constitutionality of lethal injection. Hill would be the 279th person put to death in South Carolina and the first since Calvin Alphonso Shuler, who was put to death a year ago for killing an armored car guard.

A South Carolina peace group planned to hold a silent vigil and protest Thursday night in Columbia to pray for anyone affected by the shootings, as well as a protest at the prison today.

None of Hill's family members have said they want to witness his execution, and some victims' relatives are planning to attend, prisons spokesman Josh Gelinas said. One of his attorneys said Hill has spent the past few weeks saying goodbye to family members and is mentally prepared for his death. "He was ready," Lisa Kimbrough said of the moment her client asked his attorneys to request that his appeals be dropped. "He had reached a point where, mentally, he was already there."

David Miller, who also represented Hill, will witness the execution, said Kimbrough, who will not. "I know David as a person," she said. "He certainly has tried to be thorough in saying his goodbyes."

Amnesty International

30 May 2008
USA (South Carolina) David Mark Hill (m), white, aged 47

David Hill is scheduled to be executed in South Carolina on 6 June. He was sentenced to death in 2000 for the murder of three social workers in an office shooting in 1996. David Hill has given up his appeals. Josie Curry, Michael Gregory and James Riddle were shot dead by David Hill in the office of the Department of Social Services (DSS) in North Augusta, South Carolina, on 16 September 1996. The next morning police found David Hill lying on railway tracks not far from the DSS building. He had shot himself in the head, but survived, with critical injuries.

David Hill was brought to trial in 2000. A doctor testified that although Hill had sustained frontal lobe damage to his brain when he shot himself, and was suffering from a degree of memory loss, he could understand the charges against him and would be able to follow the proceedings if he paid attention. Several experts testified that David Hill was suffering from serious mental health problems at the time of the crime, and was apparently not taking his medication on the day of the shootings.

A psychiatrist who had been treating him in the months before the crime testified that Hill was suffering from three major mental disorders: post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder and major depressive disorder. He stated that a number of traumatic events in Hill’s life had contributed to this, including his near-drowning when he was a teenager, his guilt over causing a car accident when he was 18 which killed his sister, witnessing an explosion at his workplace, and the stress of his daughter being left paraplegic in a car accident in 1995 (she died in 1998).

David Hill made a number of suicide attempts in the months before the crime. In July 1996, police had been called to his home when he was threatening to kill himself with a shotgun. He was eventually talked out of it by his psychiatrist and taken for treatment for depression. The shootings at the DSS office took place about a week after his three-year-old daughter and his twin two-year-old sons had been taken into DSS custody. A hearing was held before a judge in August 2007 to establish whether Hill was competent to make this decision. A psychiatrist testified that Hill had suffered from severe depression and other mental disorders in the past, but that these were now in remission and he was not currently on medication for any mental illness. She testified that although he had sustained brain damage and neurological impairments as a result of shooting himself in 1996, he had made a good recovery. The psychiatrist testified that David Hill’s decision to drop his appeals appeared to be rational, that he knew the consequences of his decision and even believed that he could win an appeal if he proceeded to challenge his death sentence. The judge found that Hill was competent to waive his appeals, and this was upheld by the state Supreme Court on 28 April 2008.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

About one in 10 of the more than 1,100 men and women put to death in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977 had given up their appeals (see Prisoner-assisted homicide – more ‘volunteer’ executions loom, May 2007, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/087/2007). Any number of factors may contribute to a condemned inmate's decision not to pursue appeals, including mental disorder, physical illness, remorse, bravado, religious belief, a quest for notoriety, the severity of conditions of confinement, including prolonged isolation and lack of physical contact visits, the bleak alternative of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or pessimism about appeal prospects.

In some cases it appears that the detainee may have committed the crime in order to receive a death sentence. Pre-trial or post-conviction suicidal ideation seems to motivate the decision-making of some such inmates, including some whose abusive childhoods have left them traumatized or suffering mental health problems. With such cases in mind, the execution of “volunteers” is often compared to state-assisted suicide. However, “prisoner-assisted homicide” may be a more appropriate description of this phenomenon.

Rational or irrational, an inmate’s decision to waive appeals may simply stem from a desire to gain a semblance of control over a situation in which they are otherwise powerless. As the US Supreme Court recognized over a century ago, “when a prisoner sentenced by a court to death is confined in the penitentiary awaiting the execution of the sentence, one of the most horrible feelings to which he can be subjected during that time is the uncertainty during the whole of it…as to the precise time when his execution shall take place.” One way for a prisoner to end this cruel uncertainty is to ask to be killed by the state.

Given the rate of error found in capital cases on appeal, if the more than 120 “volunteers” executed since 1977 had pursued their appeals, there is a significant possibility that a number of them would have had their death sentences overturned to prison terms. To look at it another way, the phenomenon of “volunteers” contributes to the arbitrariness that is a part of the death penalty in the USA.

There have been 1,102 executions in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977, 37 of them in South Carolina. Today, 137 countries are abolitionist in law or practice. In late 2007, the UN General Assembly passed a landmark resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, unconditionally (see ‘The pointless and needless extinction of life’: USA should now look beyond lethal injection issue to wider death penalty questions, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/031/2008/en).

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible:

- expressing sympathy for the relatives and co-workers of Josie Curry, Michael Gregory and James Riddle, and explaining that you are not seeking to excuse the manner of their deaths or to downplay the suffering caused;

- opposing the execution of David Hill and the death penalty in general;

- noting the global abolitionist trend and last year’s vote at the United Nations General Assembly calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions;

- calling on the governor to support a moratorium on executions in South Carolina and to work towards abolition of the death penalty in his state.

ProDeathPenalty.Com

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - Twelve years finally came to a head Friday for David Mark Hill, as he was the 269th South Carolinian executed. It all happened on the afternoon of Sept. 17, 1996 at a Department of Social Services office in North Augusta. That was the day three department workers were gunned down by Hill. His victims were 30-year-old Michael Gregory, 33-year-old Josie Curry and 52-year-old Jimmy Riddle. Hill was angry that DSS took away custody of his quadriplegic daughter and twin sons. (from WIS News 10 at http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=8443366 ) DSS became involved with the family because of concern about the parents’ abuse of prescription drugs. The children were eventually removed from the home. On the morning of September 16, 1996, Hill had a telephone conversation with his caseworker, James Riddle. Hill then called his sister-in-law to ask for a ride to the DSS office. The sister-in-law and her husband gave Hill a ride to the Business & Technology Center where the DSS office was located. On the way, Hill said that he was tired of people “playing God” with his children. The couple dropped Hill off at the front of the building.

Sometime before 2:00 pm, several DSS workers returned to work after a birthday luncheon. Annette Michael was walking towards her cubicle in the DSS office area when another worker, Josie Currie, approached with her hands up. Hill was behind Josie with a gun. Josie asked Annette where James Riddle's office was. When Annette motioned with her hand, Hill told her to step in behind Josie. The three of them walked down the aisle to James's cubicle. James was seated at his desk speaking on the telephone. Josie stepped into the cubicle and said, “This man would like to see you.” Hill fired a shot into the cubicle, hitting James in the head. He then pointed the gun over Annette’s shoulder and shot Josie in the head. Annette fell with Josie as a third shot was fired. Annette saw James fall over in his chair and she saw a hole in his forehead before she fainted on the floor. Another DSS worker, Michael Gregory, was found dead of a gunshot wound in the men's restroom. Both Josie and James died within the next few hours. Annette was not injured.

The next morning, police were still searching for Hill. At around 9:20 a.m., he was found lying on the railroad tracks behind the building with his gun nearby. He had a bullet hole through the roof of his mouth and an exit wound in the top of his skull. Although he was seriously injured, Hill was able to speak. After he was taken to the hospital, he was given Miranda warnings. Hill admitted to the shootings. He said he first shot Michael Gregory in the restroom because Gregory had seen him. He shot James Riddle because Riddle was his caseworker. He shot Josie Currie “because she was black.”

In deciding to forego his appeals, Hill stated that his religious beliefs are that "if you kill somebody, you shed somebody else’s blood, that your blood has to be shed or you have to die in order to be forgiven for that."

South Carolina Equal Justice Initiative

State v. Hill, 361 S.C. 297, 604 S.E.2d 696 (S.C. 2004) (Direct Appeal).

Background: Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Aiken County, Marc H. Westbrook, J., of capital murder, attempted murder, and burglary. Defendant appealed.

Holdings: The Supreme Court, Toal, C.J., held that:
(1) defendant's memory loss surrounding murders due to his self-inflicted gunshot wound to head did not render him incompetent to stand trial;
(2) office area of building where defendant entered from lobby was not separate building, for purposes of burglary;
(3) statement to police at hospital that he killed third victim “because she was black,” was not involuntary;
(4) sentencing statute did not preclude persons serving mandatory life from engaging in work or educational activities; and
(5) defendant was not deprived of fair and impartial jury. Affirmed in part; vacated in part; reversed in part.

Chief Justice TOAL:
Appellant was convicted of capital murder and related charges for killing three employees at the Aiken County Department of Social Services (DSS) on September 16, 1996. We affirm appellant's murder convictions and three death sentences, vacate his conviction for attempted murder, and reverse his conviction for burglary.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

When these murders took place, appellant was married and had three children: a three-year-old daughter who was a quadriplegic FN1 and twin two-year-old boys. DSS became involved with the family because of concern about the parents' abuse of prescription drugs. The children were eventually removed from the home.

FN1. The daughter was injured when appellant's wife had a car accident less than a year earlier.

On the morning of September 16, 1996, appellant had a telephone conversation with his caseworker, James Riddle. Appellant then called his sister-in-law, Tammy Campbell, to ask for a ride to the DSS office. Tammy and her husband gave appellant a ride to the Business & Technology Center where the DSS office was located. On the way, appellant said that he was tired of people “playing God” with his children. The Campbells dropped appellant off at the front of the building.

Sometime before 2:00 p.m., several DSS workers returned to work after a birthday luncheon. Annette Michael was walking towards her cubicle in the DSS office area when another worker, Josie Currie, approached with her hands up. Appellant was behind Josie with a gun. Josie asked Annette where James Riddle's office was. When Annette motioned with her hand, appellant told her to step in behind Josie. The three of them walked down the aisle to James's cubicle. James was seated at his desk speaking on the telephone. Josie stepped into the cubicle and said, “This man would like to see you.”

Appellant fired a shot into the cubicle, hitting James in the head. He then pointed the gun over Annette's shoulder and shot Josie in the head. Annette fell with Josie as a third shot was fired. Annette saw James fall over in his chair and she saw a hole in his forehead before she fainted on the floor. Another DSS worker, Michael Gregory, was found dead of a gunshot wound in the men's restroom. Both Josie and James died within the next few hours. Annette was not injured.

The next morning, police were still searching for appellant. At around 9:20 a.m., appellant was found lying on the railroad tracks behind the building with his gun nearby. He had a bullet hole through the roof of his mouth and an exit wound in the top of his skull. Although he was seriously injured, appellant was able to speak. After he was taken to the hospital, he was given Miranda warnings. Appellant admitted to the shootings. He said he first shot Michael Gregory in the restroom because Gregory had seen him. He shot James Riddle because Riddle was his caseworker. He shot Josie Currie “because she was black.”

At trial, defense counsel conceded appellant was guilty of the shootings and urged that the real issue was the penalty to be imposed. Appellant was convicted of three counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, kidnapping, second-degree burglary, and weapon charges. At the penalty phase, the jury found four aggravating circumstances: (1) murder while in commission of a burglary, (2) kidnapping, (3) two or more persons murdered, and (4) risk of death of two or more persons in a public place. The jury returned three death sentences.

As to the guilt phase of the trial, appellant raises the following issues for review: 1. Did the trial judge properly find appellant competent to stand trial? 2. Did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction on the attempted murder charge? 3. Did the trial judge properly deny a motion for directed verdict on the burglary charge? 4. Did the trial judge properly admit appellant's statement regarding Josie Currie? As to the penalty phase, appellant raises the following issues for review: 5. Did the trial judge properly charge section 16-3-20(A) as requested? 6. Did the trial judge properly restrict voir dire?

Law/Analysis

1. Competence

Appellant contends the trial judge erred in finding him competent to stand trial because of his memory loss surrounding the murders. We disagree.

The test for determining competency to stand trial is whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. State v. Weik, 356 S.C. 76, 81, 587 S.E.2d 683, 685 (2002), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 930, 123 S.Ct. 2580, 156 L.Ed.2d 609 (2003); State v. Bell, 293 S.C. 391, 395-96, 360 S.E.2d 706, 708 (1987). The defendant bears the burden of proving his incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. Weik, 356 S.C. at 81, 587 S.E.2d at 685. The trial judge's decision as to whether the defendant is competent to stand trial will be upheld if supported by any evidence. Id.

At the competency hearing, Dr. Evans testified appellant had frontal lobe damage from the gunshot wound to his brain and some resulting memory loss after the trauma. Dr. Bellard testified appellant had difficulty with his memory during the time leading up to the crime but admitted “it is possible [appellant] does remember what happened during the crime.” Dr. Bellard further stated appellant understood the charges against him and could follow the proceedings if he paid attention. The State's expert testified appellant was competent.

The trial judge found appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged memory loss rendered him incompetent. The evidence, which indicates that appellant understood the charges and the proceedings, supports this ruling.

2. Attempted murder charge

Appellant was indicted for assault with intent to kill (AWIK) and “attempted murder” for shooting at Annette Michael, whom he shot at but missed. Because both charges involved the same victim, the State elected to proceed on the attempted murder charge rather than AWIK. The indictment for AWIK was nol-prossed. Appellant was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to life. He contends the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of this charge under this Court's decision in State v. Sutton, 340 S.C. 393, 532 S.E.2d 283 (2000). We agree.

In State v. Sutton, the Court of Appeals held attempted murder is not a recognized offense in South Carolina. 333 S.C. 192, 194, 508 S.E.2d 41, 42 (Ct.App.1998). This decision was filed October 26, 1998, and we granted certiorari on July 8, 1999. Appellant's trial commenced February 7, 2000. On May 15, 2000, we affirmed as modified the Court of Appeals' ruling in Sutton, holding that attempted murder is not a recognized offense in South Carolina. 340 S.C. at 398, 532 S.E.2d at 286.

[5] The State argues that in affirming the Court of Appeals, we did not reiterate the Court of Appeals' analysis that such an offense “never existed,” but instead clarified the definition of AWIK and concluded the offense of attempted murder is unnecessary. The State claims our decision is therefore a new rule that should apply prospectively only. We disagree. A decision announcing a new rule of law will be given retroactive effect to all cases pending on direct review. State v. Jones, 312 S.C. 100, 102, 439 S.E.2d 282, 282 (1994). Accordingly, we vacate the attempted murder conviction and the five-year sentence for possession of a firearm during the attempted murder.

3. Burglary conviction

Appellant was convicted of second-degree burglary under S.C.Code Ann. section 16-11-312(B)(1) (2003), which provides: (B) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and either: (1) When, in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) Is armed with a deadly weapon or explosive; or (b) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (c) Uses or threatens the use of a dangerous instrument; or (d) Displays what is or appears to be a knife, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun, or other firearm.

Under section 16-11-310(1)(b), “building” includes a structure where people assemble for purposes of business or government. Further, the same section states: Where a building consists of two or more units separately occupied or secured, each unit is deemed both a separate building in itself and a part of the main building. (emphasis added).

Appellant contends the trial judge erred in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict on the burglary charge because there is no evidence he entered without consent. The State contends the DSS office area was “separately secured” from the public area and, because appellant had no authority to enter that area, his entry was without consent.

The DSS offices are located in the Business & Technology Center, also referred to as the “BTC building.” Glass front doors are at the main entrance to the building and these open onto the main hall that runs down the length of the building with an exit at the end. DSS has its own outside entrance on the right side of the building that leads into the DSS lobby. There is also a locked employee entrance that opens directly into the office area of DSS. From the main building hallway, there are two inside entrances to the DSS area, one to the DSS lobby and one to the DSS office area, which apparently was a locked door with a buzzer.

Within the DSS area, there is a door between the lobby and the office area. Typically, clients enter the DSS lobby, and the receptionist calls the DSS worker who comes to the lobby and escorts the client back to the worker's office cubicle. Clients generally are told they are not to go back into the office area unescorted. There is no evidence, however, that this door was locked or even closed on the day of the shootings. In addition, there is no sign posted telling clients not to enter.

Britt Campbell, who gave appellant a ride to the DSS office on the day of the shootings, testified he saw appellant go to the front glass doors of the BTC building, open the door, and take a step inside before Campbell drove away. After the shootings, Appellant himself told police that he “entered the side door and exited the back door.” FN2 There is no eyewitness testimony indicating how appellant got into the DSS office area. The first time he was seen, he was already in the office area.

FN2. A maintenance worker saw appellant exit the back door of the building at the end of the main hallway.

The State's theory to support appellant's burglary conviction rests on the statutory definition of “building,” which includes a unit in a building that has two or more units where each unit is “separately occupied or secured.” S.C.Code Ann. § 16-11-310(1)(b). At least one other court has applied this statutory term to find an area within a building to be separately secured if the unit requires a separate key for entry. Hawaii v. Vowell, 9 Haw.App. 307, 837 P.2d 1308, 1311-1312 (1992); see also State v. Vinyard, 32 Kan.App.2d 39, 78 P.3d 1196, 1198 (2003) (holding separate businesses in a shopping mall are separate buildings). In light of our rule that a penal statute must be strictly construed against the State, State v. Muldrow, 348 S.C. 264, 268, 559 S.E.2d 847, 849 (2002), we construe “separately occupied or secured” to require some objective manifestation that the unit is secure.FN3

FN3. We are aware that other courts addressing the issue of burglary in a public building have held that consent to enter a public building is limited to the purpose for which the building is open and therefore any unlawful act is without consent as a matter of law. See, e.g., People v. Blair, 52 Ill.2d 371, 288 N.E.2d 443, 445 (1972); State v. Adams, 94 Nev. 503, 581 P.2d 868, 869 (1978). This approach has been criticized, however, because it elevates every crime committed in a public building, such as shoplifting, to a burglary. State v. Hall, 27 Kan.App.2d 313, 3 P.3d 582, 585, aff'd, 270 Kan. 194, 14 P.3d 404, 409 (2000).

In this case, the evidence indicates that at least one entry into the DSS office area was not secured-the entry from the DSS lobby into the office area. There was no sign refusing admittance, no evidence the door was secured, and no evidence appellant was denied entry. We find the DSS office area does not qualify as a separate building for purposes of the burglary statute and reverse the denial of a directed verdict on this charge.

4. Admission of statement

Appellant contends his statement that he killed the third victim, Josie Currie, “because she was black,” should have been suppressed as an involuntary statement because police told him he was dying and because of his mental condition due to his brain injury. We disagree.

When appellant was found on the railroad tracks, he had a bullet wound in the top of his head. The arresting officers did not tell him he was dying. Agent McAlhany testified he thought appellant was dying but did not tell him. Agent Otterbacher did not recall telling appellant he was dying but did ask him if he believed in God and, if so, he needed to ask God's forgiveness.

Appellant was then taken to the hospital where he was interviewed, with the doctors' permission, after being given Miranda warnings. Appellant was coherent and indicated he understood his rights when he gave the contested statement.

A defendant's mental condition in and of itself does not render a statement involuntary in violation of due process. Absent coercive police conduct causally related to a confession, there is no basis for finding a confession constitutionally involuntary. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 164, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); State v. Hughes, 336 S.C. 585, 594, 521 S.E.2d 500, 505 (1999); see also State v. Doby, 273 S.C. 704, 709, 258 S.E.2d 896, 899 (1979) (under state law, a confession is not inadmissible because of mental deficiency alone).

Agent Ottenbacher's suggestion that appellant ask God's forgiveness does not, on its face, rise to the level of police coercion. In addition, there is no testimony in the record that appellant felt coerced by this statement. Appellant's mental condition alone does not support a finding of involuntariness absent evidence of police coercion. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial judge properly admitted the statement. State v. Owens, 346 S.C. 637, 660, 552 S.E.2d 745, 757 (2001) (conclusion of the trial judge on issues of fact as to the voluntariness of a confession will not be disturbed unless so manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion).

5. Section 16-3-20(A)

During the penalty phase of trial, the defense put up an extensive case, including mental health experts who testified as to appellant's mental illnesses FN4 and prison officials who testified as to his good behavior while incarcerated.

FN4. Appellant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, and major depression. Captain Angie Pinkney, a shift supervisor at Lee Correctional Institute, described prison conditions for inmates according to their classification. “Safekeepers” are inmates in maximum security. They are kept in lockdown for twenty-three out of twenty-four hours and escorted everywhere. This was appellant's classification. On cross-examination, Captain Pinkney was asked if “general lifers” were treated differently from those in maximum security. She answered that the level of freedom changes and inmates “have much more flexibility out there in the yard, they can leave at their leisure, go to work, school, they have a job....”

When the case was submitted to the jury, the trial judge properly charged that life imprisonment means life without the possibility of parole. After the jury began deliberations, it returned with a question: [Captain Pinkney] stated something to the fact that with a life sentence Mr. Hill can go to school, work, etc. Please reiterate the response to the solicitor's question. What's the difference between life in prison and super max. The trial judge then had Captain Pinkney's testimony replayed. He refused defense counsel's request that an additional charge be given based on S.C.Code Ann. section 16-3-20(A) (Supp.2003), which in pertinent part provides:

A person who is convicted of or pleads guilty to murder must be punished by death, by imprisonment for life, or by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment for thirty years.... No person sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to this section is eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by this section. (emphasis added). The trial judge ruled that the italicized language expressed only the legislature's intent that the mandatory term not be reduced and does not prohibit a person sentenced to life imprisonment from working or seeking an education.

A plain reading of the statute supports the trial judge's interpretation. The statute speaks strictly in terms of prohibiting credit for certain activities but does not prohibit those activities in the day-to-day life of an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment. We find no error in refusing the additional charge.

6. Jury voir dire

During voir dire, the trial judge refused defense counsel's request to ask jurors whether they would give up their vote in order to go with the majority. Appellant contends this was error under State v. Bennett, 328 S.C. 251, 493 S.E.2d 845 (1997). We disagree.

In general, the scope of voir dire and the manner in which it is conducted are within the trial judges sound discretion. State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 23, 596 S.E.2d 475, 479 (2004) (citations omitted). To constitute reversible error, a limitation on questioning must render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 730, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 2230, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992); State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 104, 501 S.E.2d 122, 127 (1998). On review, a jurors responses must be examined in light of the entire voir dire, with the primary consideration being that the juror is unbiased, impartial, and capable of following instructions on the law. State v. Green, 301 S.C. 347, 354, 392 S.E.2d 157, 161, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 229, 112 L.Ed.2d 183 (1990).

In Bennett, we found a juror unqualified who, when asked, stated he could not go against the majority if the eleven other jurors voted for death. We held that the juror's statement indicated he would not have been able to follow the law as explained to him and his earlier generalized statement that he could follow the law did not cure this deficiency. Bennett, 328 S.C. at 257, 493 S.E.2d at 848.

But Bennett does not determine whether it is appropriate, much less mandatory, for defense counsel to ask the “go with the majority” question. In fact, the appropriateness of the question was not at issue in Bennett; instead, the ultimate inquiry in Bennett was whether the juror was “unbiased, impartial, and able to carry out the law as explained to him.” Id. Considering the voir dire as a whole, we determined that the juror was not impartial. Id.

In the present case, however, a review of the entire voir dire reveals that the defendant had an impartial jury. Prior to qualification, the judge asked all potential jurors to read summaries of three potential juror types: (1) one who would feel required to give the death penalty in every case where murder had been proved; (2) one who would not give the death penalty under any circumstance, including when the defendant had been found guilty of murder; and (3) one who would not have his or her mind made up in advance concerning punishment-this person would need to hear the facts and circumstances in aggravation and mitigation, and would want to listen to and follow the law as charged before making a decision. Qualified jurors indicated that they were like the third type of juror-the kind of juror who would listen to all the circumstances and follow the judge's instructions on the law. They were repeatedly questioned by the State and the defense as to whether they understood the nature of this category of potential jurors.

Moreover, there is no indication that the limitation on questioning affected the selection of an impartial jury. Appellant does not point to a single juror whose responses vacillated or whose responses suggested that the juror was incapable of hearing all of the evidence before making a decision. Further, unlike the question asked in Bennett, the question asked in the present case does not probe whether jurors would automatically vote for death regardless of their view on the evidence and therefore reveals little, if anything, about juror impartiality. In sum, a review of the entire voir dire indicates that the jurors were unbiased, impartial, and capable of following instructions on the law.

In the final analysis, what is constitutionally mandated is the selection of a fair and impartial jury. No particular formula of questions is mandated to achieve this goal. In our justice system, the trial judge has the discretion and the duty to monitor the voir dire so as to ensure that the jury selected measures up to the constitutional standard. The judge's ruling in this case, disallowing defense counsel to question jurors about their propensity to go with the majority, did not render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” Therefore, we affirm the trial judge's decision on this issue.

CONCLUSION

Appellant's murder convictions and three death sentences are affirmed, the convictions for attempted murder and the related weapon charge are vacated, and the conviction for second-degree burglary is reversed. Appellant's remaining issues are without merit: See Issue 4: State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 508 S.E.2d 870 (1998) (prejudice must be shown from erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence); Issues 8 & 9: Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 518 S.E.2d 265 (1999) (jury is presumed to follow instructions); State v. Prince, 279 S.C. 30, 301 S.E.2d 471 (1983) (mistrial should not be granted except in cases of manifest necessity); Issue 10: State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 525 S.E.2d 246 (2000) (trial judge's ruling on scope of cross-examination will be reversed only if showing of prejudice); Issue 11: Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 529 S.E.2d 528 (2000) (trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether to admit demonstrative evidence including charts and diagrams which are not direct evidence and have only secondary relevance); Issue 12: State v. Colf, 337 S.C. at 625, 525 S.E.2d at 247-48 (no reversible error from cross-examination without showing of prejudice); Issue 13: State v. Matthews, 296 S.C. 379, 373 S.E.2d 587 (1988); State v. Ivey, 325 S.C. 137, 481 S.E.2d 125 (1997) (where trial judge's instructions defining life imprisonment were sufficient to ensure jurors' proper understanding, the question was properly disallowed); Issue 14: State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 501 S.E.2d 122 (1998) (where general question covers the subject of mitigating circumstances, more specific questions need not be allowed); Issue 15: State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 515 S.E.2d 508 (1999); State v. Davis, 309 S.C. 326, 422 S.E.2d 133 (1992) (whether juror is qualified to serve on a death penalty case is within sole discretion of trial judge and is not reviewable on appeal unless wholly unsupported by the evidence); State v. Tucker, 334 S.C. 1, 512 S.E.2d 99 (1998) (trial judge's disqualification of a prospective juror will not be disturbed where there is a reasonable basis from which trial judge could have concluded the juror would not have been able to faithfully discharge her responsibilities as a juror).

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.

BURNETT and Acting Justice JAMES E. BROGDON, Jr., concur.

MOORE, J., dissenting in a separate opinion in which WALLER, J., concurs.

Justice MOORE dissenting.

Because I disagree with the majority's holding that juror voir dire was properly limited, I respectfully dissent.

In my view, our decision in State v. Bennett, 328 S.C. 251, 493 S.E.2d 845 (1997), is controlling here. In Bennett, we found unqualified a juror who stated he could not go against the majority if the eleven other jurors voted for death. We concluded the juror's earlier generalized statement that he could “follow the law” did not cure this deficiency. Our holding in Bennett compels the conclusion that a juror's general statement that he or she could follow the law does not satisfy the specific inquiry defense counsel requested here. Cf. State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 501 S.E.2d 122 (1998) (fundamental fairness not violated by limited voir dire where other questions covered request).

Further, as noted by the United States Supreme Court, “The measure of a jury is taken by reference to the impartiality of each individual juror .... each of these jurors must stand equally impartial in his or her ability to follow the law.” Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 735, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992). A juror's ability to decide the case independently of the majority is particularly relevant under our capital sentencing scheme because even one vote for life will defeat a death sentence. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (Supp.2003) (where jury fails to return unanimous verdict, the judge must impose a life sentence).FN5 It is therefore crucial that the defendant be able to inquire whether a juror has a propensity to follow the majority.

FN5. The jury, however, need not be told the consequences of its failure to agree. Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 119 S.Ct. 2090, 144 L.Ed.2d 370 (1999). Here the jury was charged it must be unanimous in imposing a life or death sentence. In light of our sentencing scheme, I would hold that fundamental fairness requires that the defense be allowed to probe a juror's ability to vote independently of the majority. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new sentencing proceeding.

Hill v. State, 377 S.C. 462, 661 S.E.2d 92(S.C. 2008) (PCR).

Background: Defendant filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR) after his convictions for murder and sentences of death were affirmed, 361 S.C. 297, 604 S.E.2d 696. Later, defendant advised the Supreme Court that he wished to withdraw his application and abandon any remaining appeals. The Supreme Court remanded for a competency evaluation. On remand, the Circuit Court, Aiken County, Doyet A. Early, III, J., found that defendant was competent to waive his appeals and that his decision to do so was made knowingly and voluntarily.

Holding: On review, the Supreme Court, Waller, J., held that defendant was competent to waive further appellate review and knowingly and voluntarily decided to do so. Affirmed.