Criminal Practice – Use of a Restraint Chair – Admission of Body Camera Footage

Listen to this article

The trial court did not err in authorizing the use of a restraint chair at the beginning of Appellant’s trial.

We affirmed.

Appellant was convicted of several offenses, including murder, arising out of his attempt to flee a traffic stop. Appellant contended he is entitled to a new trial due to the use of a restraint chair for part of his trial, the use of shackles throughout the trial, the presence of uniformed law enforcement officers in the gallery, and the admission of certain evidence.

Among other things, Appellant argued the trial court erred in authorizing the use of a restraint chair at the beginning of his trial because he believes it was not justified by the circumstances and the trial court “did not articulate why a verbally ‘disruptive’ defendant who refused to come out of the holding cell required a restraint chair.” We disagreed. Appellant was extraordinarily disruptive during the leadup to his trial and at the beginning of the trial. The record is replete with instances where he was completely uncooperative and refused to answer basic questions posed by judges. Appellant was cautioned three times, by two different judges, that he was being disruptive and there would be consequences if he continued. Appellant did not heed these warnings and continued to disrupt the proceedings by refusing to participate even though he was representing himself. This shocking display of noncompliance culminated in Appellant refusing to exit his holding cell before opening statements. As a result, Appellant was put in a restraint chair and brought into the courtroom. The trial court made a finding, outside of the jury’s presence, that Appellant had been disruptive and that it was approving the restraint chair’s use pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidelines in Illinois v. Allen. It is evident from the record that the trial court was aware of the applicable law and that the court ruled in light of that law and based on the facts of this case. This was accordingly an appropriate exercise of the trial court’s discretion. Appellant contended the trial court could have utilized other options available under Illinois v. Allen, but the trial court does not abuse its discretion simply because it could have done something differently. On this exceptional record, we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in authorizing the use of the restraint chair.

Finally, Appellant argued the trial court erred in admitting several pieces of body camera footage from the traffic stop and the subsequent car crash because he believes the videos should have been excluded under Rule 403, SCRE. We disagreed. While the challenged videos were certainly similar to other evidence, we did not find they were needlessly cumulative. The videos showed different angles of this encounter, and this was relevant because Appellant questioned which of the multiple collisions caused the officer’s fatal injuries. The videos likely allowed the officers to testify more effectively and likely helped the jury better understand the testimony as each video portrayed a different point of view as this incident developed. Furthermore, the probative value of the videos was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because they contained no gruesome or graphic content that was likely to inflame the jury. Accordingly, we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the body camera videos into evidence.

Affirmed.

The State v. Ray Kelly (Lawyers’ Weekly No. 012-040-25, 9 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Greenville County Circuit Court (Edward W. Miller, J.) Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General William Joseph Maye, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Cynthia Smith Crick, of Greenville, all for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished