Blakely v. State
Decision Date | 07 September 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 25865.,25865. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | James G. BLAKELY, a.k.a. Jimmy Gatewood Blakely, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Chief, Capital & Collateral Litigation Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salle W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christopher L. Newton, all of Columbia, for petitioner.
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of Columbia, for respondent.
We granted the State's petition to review the grant of relief in this post-conviction relief (PCR) action. The PCR judge found counsel was ineffective for failing to object to evidence of respondent's previous threats. We reverse.
Respondent was charged with murder and assault and battery with intent to kill (ABIK) for wounding his girlfriend Sarah Ann Moss (a.k.a. "Ann") and killing her friend John Henderson (a.k.a. "Steve") after a domestic dispute earlier in the day. Respondent shot both victims in front of Ann's house as they were getting out of a car. Steve managed to drive off after being shot but was found dead near his car about a half-mile away.
Respondent claimed self-defense on the murder charge. He testified he saw Steve and Ann kissing in the car. When he confronted them, Steve came at respondent with a knife. To the contrary, eye-witnesses testified they saw Steve put his hands up immediately before being shot. No one saw a knife and no knife was ever found at the scene or in Steve's car. In his statement to police, respondent did not mention that Steve had a knife when respondent shot him. Respondent claimed he told detectives about the knife but they omitted it from his statement.
As a defense to ABIK, respondent testified he accidentally shot Ann when she came up behind him after he shot Steve.
The jury found respondent guilty of the lesser offenses of voluntary manslaughter and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He was given consecutive sentences of thirty years and ten years. Respondent's direct appeal was dismissed after an Anders review. He then filed this action for PCR.
Was counsel ineffective for not objecting to evidence of previous threats?
On direct examination, Ann testified as follows:
The PCR judge found counsel should have objected to this evidence of previous threats because it impermissibly placed respondent's character in issue.
It is well-settled that evidence of previous threats by the defendant is admissible to show malice. State v. Lee, 255 S.C. 309, 178 S.E.2d 652 (1971); see also State v. Alford, 264 S.C. 26, 212 S.E.2d 252 (1975)
(. ) Respondent was charged with murder and ABIK, both of which...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Huggler v. State
-
United States v. Dinkins
...at 51. "The required mental state for ABIK, like murder, is malice aforethought." Fennell, 531 S.E.2d at 517; accord Blakely v. State, 602 S.E.2d 758, 759 (S.C. 2004); Foust, 479 S.E.2d at 51. The mens rea requirement in ABIK is thus satisfied"so long as there is intent to commit grievous b......
-
Staten v. State
...identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); see also Blakely v. State, 360 S.C. 636, 639, 602 S.E.2d 758, 759 (2004) (holding evidence of prior threats against a defendant's girlfriend was admissible to show intent); State v. Atkins,......
-
Staten v. State
... ... show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be ... admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a ... common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or ... intent."); see also Blakely v. State, 360 S.C ... 636, 639, 602 S.E.2d 758, 759 (2004) (holding evidence of ... prior threats against a defendant's girlfriend was ... admissible to show intent); State v. Atkins, 303 ... S.C. 214, 220, 399 S.E.2d 760, 763 (1990) (finding evidence ... of a ... ...