Bell v. State

Decision Date04 March 1996
Docket NumberNo. 24383,24383
PartiesWalter BELL, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General, J. Emory Smith, Deputy Attorney General, Teresa Nesbitt Cosby, Assistant Attorney Lesley M. Coggiola, Assistant Appellate Defender, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for respondent.

General, and Teresa A. Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM:

We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari following the grant of post conviction relief (PCR) to respondent, Walter Bell. We reverse.

FACTS

Bell was arrested and charged with the murders of his estranged wife, Carrie Bell, and her long-time friend, Amos Franklin. The trial judge reluctantly granted trial counsel's request to charge voluntary manslaughter. Thereafter, Bell was granted PCR based upon counsel's ineffective assistance in failing to request a King charge. 1 The State contends there was no evidence to support submission of manslaughter to the jury such that Bell was not prejudiced from the lack of a King charge. We agree.

DISCUSSION

The burden of proof as to the allegations contained in a PCR application lies with the applicant. Butler v. State, 286 S.C. 441, 334 S.E.2d 813 (1985). Allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel must be supported by proof that counsel was deficient in his performance and that this deficiency resulted in prejudice to the applicant. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Where there is no evidence to support an instruction on a lesser-included offense, a PCR applicant cannot show prejudice from the failure to request a King charge. Gilmore v. State, 314 S.C. 453, 445 S.E.2d 454 (1994). See also State v. Gadsden, 314 S.C. 229, 442 S.E.2d 594 (1994).

Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation. State v. Lowry, 315 S.C. 396, 434 S.E.2d 272 (1993). "Sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation" that mitigates a felonious killing to manslaughter must be such as would naturally disturb the sway of reason, and render the mind of an ordinary person incapable of cool reflection, and produce what, according to human experience, may be called "an uncontrollable impulse to do violence." State v. Gardner, 219 S.C. 97, 64 S.E.2d 130 (1951). Adultery may, in some instances, serve as sufficient legal provocation. State v. Gadsden, supra.

The present record reveals that one week prior to the murders, Bell threw his wife Carrie and her daughter out of the house. On the night of the murders, Bell went to the home where Carrie was staying with relatives. She was sitting outside in a van talking with her friend Amos Franklin. Bell began to beat her. Carrie's daughter called police and Bell left. After police left, Bell returned and shot Franklin as he exited the van. He then chased Carrie into the house and shot her. 2

There is absolutely no evidence in the record that Carrie and Amos had anything other than a platonic relationship or that they were engaged in an adulterous affair. Likewise, there is no evidence Bell was jealous in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Tucker
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 17 Septiembre 1996
    ...Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another in sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation. Bell v. State, --- S.C. ----, 467 S.E.2d 926 (1996). Here, there is no sufficient legal provocation. If Victim did try to grab the gun, she was only trying to defend hersel......
  • Brightman v. State
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 23 Agosto 1999
    ...on a lesser-included offense, a PCR applicant cannot show prejudice from the failure to request a King charge. Bell v. State, 321 S.C. 238, 467 S.E.2d 926 (1996). A trial judge must charge a lesser included offense if there is evidence from which it can be inferred that the defendant commit......
  • McKnight v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 20 Enero 2016
    ...to the truth.The burden of proof is on the applicant in a PCR proceeding to prove the allegations in his application. Bell v. State, 321 S.C. 238, 467 S.E.2d 926 (1996); Rule 71.1(e), SCRCP.For an applicant to be granted PCR as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show bot......
  • Williams v. Warden
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • 10 Marzo 2016
    ...of counsel. The burden of proof is on the applicant in a PCR proceeding to prove the allegations in his application. Bell v. State, 321 S.C. 238, 467 S.E.2d 926 (1996); Rule 71.1(e), SCRCP.For an applicant to be granted PCR as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show both......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT