State v. Williams
| Citation | 844 S.E.2d 57,430 S.C. 136 |
| Decision Date | 13 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 27967,Appellate Case No. 2018-001365 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Terry WILLIAMS, Petitioner. |
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney III, of Sumter, for Respondent.
Terry Williams shot and killed Larry Moore (Victim) and shot and wounded
Reva McFadden. Williams was indicted for murder, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. He maintained he acted in self-defense. A jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter (a lesser-included offense of murder), ABHAN, and the weapon charge. The court of appeals affirmed. State v. Williams , Op. No. 2018-UP-176 (S.C. Ct. App. filed May 2, 2018).
We granted Williams a writ of certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's ruling allowing the State to impeach McFadden on redirect examination with details of two previous instances of domestic violence between Williams and McFadden. We hold the trial court erred in allowing the State to elicit unfairly prejudicial details of the domestic violence incidents. The error was not harmless; therefore, we reverse the court of appeals and remand for a new trial.
The shooting occurred shortly after midnight on November 10, 2013, in the parking lot of Viola's Place, also known as "Celestine's," a bar in Williamsburg County. Williams and McFadden had been together for fifteen years, were married for the last five of those years, and have five children together. They had been separated for approximately one year at the time of the shooting. Victim and McFadden had been dating for approximately nine months. Evidence in the record indicates Williams was still in love with McFadden and was upset over her growing relationship with Victim.
After the shooting, Williams fled the scene in his vehicle, parked it outside his cousin's home, and hid in the woods for the rest of the night. He turned himself into law enforcement later that day and was eventually indicted for murder, ABHAN, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.
Williams moved for immunity pursuant to the Protection of Persons and Property Act.1 His immunity hearing was held the day before his jury trial began. Williams argued he was immune from prosecution under the stand-your-ground provisions of subsection 16-11-440(C).2 Even though Williams does not appeal the trial court's denial of immunity, McFadden's testimony from the immunity hearing gives context to her trial testimony and the trial court's evidentiary rulings that are the subject of this appeal.
Williams called McFadden as a witness during the immunity hearing.3 She testified that on the night of the shooting, she and Victim were inside the club shooting pool and socializing. She testified Victim's mood darkened when Williams entered the bar, ordered a drink, and walked back outside. McFadden asked Victim what was wrong, and Victim responded he was "tired of [Williams] mean mugging." According to McFadden, "mean mugging" means giving someone dirty looks. McFadden told Victim to ignore Williams, but Victim told her he was going outside to "see what [Williams] wants to do." McFadden begged Victim to stay inside the bar, but Victim refused and walked outside. Moments later, McFadden followed Victim outside into the parking area, where Victim was standing near the front of Williams' vehicle, with Williams behind the open driver's door about ten feet away from Victim. McFadden testified Victim was complaining angrily to Williams about Williams looking at him, and in response, Williams was telling Victim "back up man, just leave it alone, back up, back up." McFadden testified she attempted to step in front of Victim and Williams started shooting.
As defense counsel was questioning McFadden about the shooting, he asked McFadden to describe Williams, and she replied, "[Williams] is a nice person, you know, quiet person, real quiet person, a self-person, don't bother nobody really." Since Williams had the burden of establishing the elements of self-defense (save the duty to retreat) under subsection 16-11-440(C), defense counsel had to establish that Williams was reasonably in fear for his life immediately before the shooting. McFadden testified Victim was "very, very furious, very mad" at Williams. She also testified she had known Williams for fifteen years, knew how to gauge his emotions, and that Williams seemed afraid for his life.
On cross-examination by the State during the immunity hearing, after McFadden acknowledged she described her husband on direct examination as quiet, loving, and sweet, the State asked McFadden if Williams was the same man who (1) pulled an AK-47 on her during an argument eleven months before the shooting and (2) pulled a .22 caliber pistol on her during another argument six months before the shooting. McFadden admitted those two incidents occurred and that she called the police both times. The trial court denied Williams' motion for immunity, and the case proceeded to trial the next day.
After jury selection, Williams moved to exclude testimony concerning the two incidents. Defense counsel stated, The trial court instructed the State to request an in camera hearing prior to introducing evidence of any other bad acts committed by Williams.
Since the burden of proof shifted to the State once the jury trial began, McFadden was called as a prosecution witness during trial. Her description of the events leading up to the shooting basically tracked her testimony during the immunity hearing. McFadden testified that by the time she went outside after Victim, Victim and Williams were already exchanging words by Williams' vehicle. She testified several others were present at the time. Tabitha Greene was one of the others present.
Greene testified Victim and McFadden walked to McFadden's truck, walked back inside the bar, and came back outside within moments. Greene testified Victim walked over to Williams, stood in front of Williams with his arms crossed, and stared at Williams, which prompted Williams to ask Victim, "[W]hat the f**k are you looking at?" Greene testified Victim responded, "[T]hese are my f**king eyes, I can look where I want to look." Greene testified Williams replied, "Okay," and then dropped his head and walked away. Greene testified Victim then told McFadden several times to go back inside the bar. Greene testified she went inside because she was afraid there would be an altercation. Only Williams, Victim, and McFadden remained outside.
Returning to McFadden's testimony, McFadden testified Williams walked towards his vehicle with Victim following him.
McFadden testified Victim said to Williams, "[W]hat you want to do, I'm tired of you, I'm tired of seeing you everywhere I go, I'm tired, what you want to do[?]" McFadden testified Williams stood next to his vehicle behind the open driver's door and responded, "[G]o on, back up, just back up, don't come close to me, back up." McFadden testified she saw that Williams had a gun, so she tried to step between the two men. She testified Williams fired approximately ten shots and Victim fell to the ground. Williams fled the scene in his vehicle, and McFadden drove Victim to the hospital. Victim did not survive. An autopsy revealed Victim had been shot five times. McFadden was shot once in her left foot.
Under cross-examination by defense counsel, McFadden testified she had known Williams for fifteen years and could tell when he was happy, sad, and scared. She further testified under cross-examination:
(emphasis added). McFadden's last response is the focal point of this appeal.
During redirect examination by the State, McFadden confirmed her testimony that Williams was not known to get into any confrontations. The State then requested and was granted an in camera hearing, during which the State argued it should be able to introduce evidence of the two prior incidents of domestic violence between McFadden and Williams to impeach McFadden's testimony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wallace
...can be a bit harsh[2]- unless we find the trial court has not acted within the discretion we grant to trial courts. State v. Williams, 430 S.C. 136, 149, 844 S.E.2d 57, 64 (2020). In most cases, we have stated a trial court acts outside of its discretion when the ruling is not supported by ......
- State v. Morales