State v. King
| Decision Date | 18 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-001161,Opinion No. 27826 |
| Citation | 818 S.E.2d 204,424 S.C. 188 |
| Parties | The STATE, Petitioner, v. Tyrone J. KING, Respondent. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon Jr., both of Columbia and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Petitioner.
Howard W. Anderson III, of Pendleton; and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Respondent.
Tyrone J. King was convicted of murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, third-degree assault and battery, and pointing and presenting a firearm. The trial court sentenced King to life imprisonment for murder, a consecutive five year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and thirty days for third-degree assault and battery.1 King appealed his murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime convictions, and the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a full Rule 404(b), SCRE, analysis regarding the trial court's admission of certain other bad act evidence. State v. King , 416 S.C. 92, 784 S.E.2d 252 (Ct. App. 2016). We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. We vacate the court of appeals' decision to remand the case for a Rule 404(b) analysis, we reverse King's convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and we remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial on those two charges. King's convictions for pointing and presenting a firearm and third-degree assault and battery are unaffected by our holding, as King does not challenge those convictions.
King shot and killed his neighbor James Galloway (Victim) inside Victim's home during the early morning hours of November 11, 2011. The State contends King then pistol-whipped Karen Galloway (Wife) and pointed the gun at both Wife and Reggie Cousar (Cousin). King fled the scene when a Marlboro County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) deputy arrived. Following a foot chase, King was found hiding under a truck. MCSO recovered Victim's house phone at the scene where King was apprehended and retrieved a bottle of liquor from King's pocket. MCSO recovered a nine-millimeter handgun with an extended magazine from the wooded area behind King's home. MCSO also found a cartridge casing and a bullet hole in Victim's master bedroom and recovered a cartridge casing and a projectile from Victim's living room. The State claims the shooting was murder. King claims the shooting was an accident.
MCSO conducted two videotaped interviews of King after he was arrested and charged. While King has never denied he was present at the time Victim was shot, King's statements explaining the sequence of events varied greatly. In his first statement—given the morning of the shooting—King claimed a man named Aloysius McLaughlin went with him to Victim's home to purchase alcohol.2 King claimed McLaughlin unexpectedly shot Victim. At the time, King was facing charges that he had recently kidnapped and robbed McLaughlin and McLaughlin's girlfriend Melissa Graham in McColl, South Carolina (McColl charges). During this first interview, King explained to MCSO that he and McLaughlin were back on "good terms." King stated that after the shooting, he took the gun from McLaughlin, tried to calm Wife, and "waved" or "swung" the gun at her. He claimed he then gave the gun back to McLaughlin and ran from Victim's home in fear.
During his second interview five days later, King informed MCSO he went to Victim's home alone and purchased some liquor. He explained he later went back to Victim's home alone to sell a handgun he obtained from a man named "Broom." King stated that while he was showing Victim the handgun and attempting to remove the magazine from the gun, the gun accidentally discharged, shooting Victim in the face. King explained he panicked and eventually ran from Victim's home in fear. Both recorded statements contain scattered references (by both King and law enforcement) to the McColl charges and to an unrelated murder charge against King. Both sets of charges are potential "other bad acts" under Rule 404(b), SCRE.3 Over King's objection, the trial court permitted the jury to hear evidence of the pendency of these charges.
King was indicted for murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and pointing and presenting a firearm. During a pretrial hearing, King moved to exclude several portions of his first recorded interview. Throughout King's objections, the State and the trial court commented on the apparent technological impossibility of redacting certain statements from the recorded interview.
Since the State contends King did not preserve the evidentiary issues for appellate review, we will summarize King's objections to the trial court. During the entire pretrial review of King's first recorded interview, King made numerous objections. King moved to have a reference to the McColl charges redacted:
King next objected to a statement he made regarding an unrelated murder for which he was charged:
King then objected to a reference to a prior incident in which he was stabbed, and the trial court ordered that discussion to be redacted.
King's second recorded interview was also played for the trial court during the pretrial hearing. King objected to a discussion of his McColl charges, and the trial court ordered that portion of the interview to be redacted.
On the morning the trial began, the State moved to admit both recorded interviews into evidence. King again noted his objections to the interviews and noted the redactions the trial court ordered the day before. King had also emailed the trial court a list of some of his objections with the specific timestamps for the record. The list was made a court's exhibit. The State then informed the trial court it was no longer seeking to admit the first portion of the first recorded interview, which included references to the unrelated murder charge and the McColl charges. King replied he objected to more than just the first portion of the video. King specifically noted his objection to the jury hearing evidence of the prior stabbing, the unrelated murder charge, and the McColl charges. King stated:
After further colloquy concerning the technological impossibility of redacting comments made in the interviews, the trial court concluded the comments regarding the McColl charges and the unrelated murder charge need not be redacted.
Shawn Feldner, an investigator for MCSO, testified to the jury that he conducted King's first recorded interview on the night of the shooting. Prior to a portion of the first recorded interview being played for the jury, the trial court permitted Investigator Feldner to testify as to what King said to "enable [the jury] to get the full context of what was said." Investigator Feldner did not mention King's unrelated murder charge or the pending McColl charges during his summary. However, when the first interview was published to the jury, it included references to both the unrelated murder charge and the McColl charges.
Jamie Seales, another MCSO investigator, testified he conducted King's second interview. Investigator Seales likewise gave a summary to the jury of what King communicated to him during the interview. A portion of the second recorded interview was published to the jury. It does not appear from the record that any references to the unrelated murder and McColl charges were mentioned in the published portion of the second interview.
Wife testified she was in bed with Victim when there was a knock at their front door at approximately 2:30 a.m. She stated Victim answered the door, came back to the room, and told her King was at the door. Wife testified Victim went back into the living room and she heard a "pop"...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ostrowski
...Non-criminal bad acts that fall under one of the exceptions must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) (citing State v. Fletcher , 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ). "Further, even though the evidence is cle......
-
State v. Hopkins
...827, 830 (2001). The burden is "on the opponent of the evidence to establish inadmissibility" under Rule 403. State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). "A trial [court's] decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence shoul......
-
State v. Sledge
...whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). The misstated test "incorrectly places the burden on the proponent of the evidence to establish admissibility, w......
-
State v. Sanders
... ... circuit court in a sufficiently specific manner that brings ... attention to the exact error. If a party fails to properly ... object, the party is procedurally barred from raising the ... issue on appeal.") (internal citations omitted); ... c.f. State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d ... 204, 210 (2018) (finding an objection citing a rule of ... evidence preserved the issue for review because the ... defendant's argument was sufficiently specific and ... apparent from the context of the objection). Moreover, the ... ...
-
What's in a Name, Anyway? Daubert/council and Expert Testimony
...S.C. 434, 446, 699 S.E.2d 169, 175 (2010). [27] State v. White, 382 S.C. 265 676 S.E.2d 684 (2009). [28] Id. at 274. [29] State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) [30] Phillips, 430 S.C. At 335. --------- ...