State v. Alford, 19964
| Decision Date | 24 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 19964,19964 |
| Citation | 212 S.E.2d 252,264 S.C. 26 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Everette Wayne ALFORD, Appellant. |
Marion H. Kinon, Dillon, for appellant.
Solicitor Dupre Miller, Bennettsville, and Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen. C. Tolbert Goolsby, Jr., and Staff Atty. Joseph R. Barker, Columbia, for respondent.
Everette Wayne Alford, appellant, was indicted for murder, and Glen Lane was indicted for accessory before the fact of murder of Albert Cox. The two were tried together. A jury acquitted Lane, and found Alford guilty of manslaughter.
Alford has appealed, alleging error on the part of the judge in six particulars:
1. In allowing testimony of three witnesses about a threat made by appellant against the brother of the deceased about a week before the killing;
2. In allowing testimony of two witnesses about a uncommunicated threat made by appellant against the brother of the deceased the night of the killing 3. In refusing to grant the motion for a directed verdict;
4. In refusing to allow testimony about two conversations between the deceased and co-defendant Lane about two hours before the killing;
5. In charging the jury that malice can be implied from the use of a deadly weapon, when appellant is claiming self-defense;
6. In refusing to charge the jury on the law of coming to the aid of another.
Appellant claims that he is entitled to an acquittal or to a new trial. We disagree.
A review of the relevant facts is necessary to a disposition of the issues submitted to this Court.
On June 9, 1973, at about four o'clock in the morning, Albert Wayne Cox (Albert) was shot and killed by the appellant, Everette Wayne Alford, at the Tiger Inn (a drive-in) in the Oak Grove community of Dillon County.
On the evening in question, about midnight, appellant and his now-acquitted to-defendant, Glen Lane, and the deceased, Albert Wayne Cox, were drinking beer at Hatchcock's place. An argument ensued, culminating in an agreement between Lane and Albert to go to a roadside park about a quarter of a mile away and settle the matter with a fist fight. Apparently Lane dominated, and they then returned to Hathcock's and drank beer again. Later, Lane and the appellant drove in Lane's car about six miles to the Oak Grove community and parked in the drive-in lot of the Tiger Inn, where they continued to drink beer. After awhile Albert drove up in his car and indicated a desire to continue the fight. Lane agreed, but Albert drove away hurriedly. Some few minutes thereafter Albert came back by the Tiger Inn, driving in the direction of the residence of his brother, Lester Cox.
Lane and the appellant, surmising that Albert was going to pick up his brother, Lester, and return, drove to the home of appellant's brother, Gene Ray Alford, and procured a .357 magnum pistol and returned to the parking lot of the Tiger Inn. In the meantime Albert had gone to the home of Lester, and awakened him about four o'clock. Lester took his pistol from his automobile and, according to his testimony, was going to visit Albert. As they passed the Tiger Inn he observed Lane's car. It was Lester's testimony that he just wanted to stop and ask them what they wanted when they previously went to Albert's house. The evidence relative to what then took place is in conflict.
Lester's version
Lane got out of his car and came toward Lester with a knife. Lester threw a can of beer at him and struck him with a .22 pistol he had taken from his pocket. Lane and Lester then fought on the trunk of Lane's car. While they were fighting Lester heard gun shots and heard his brother Albert say 'Lester I'm shot; I'm dying.' Lester thought his brother was kidding and kept on fighting until the back glass of Lane's car blew out. He then grabbed is gun, jumped over to the side, and shot the side glass out of the back of Lane's car. Lester then learned that his brother had actually been shot and told the appellant to throw his pistol out, which appellant did. Lane then assisted Lester in placing Albert in his own car. Appellant and Lane then drove away.
Version of Lane and appellant
Lane and Lester got out of their cars, and after verbal exchanges, walked toward each other. Lester hit him (Lane) with a beer can, and then with his pistol. Lester then started firing his pistol into the car in which appellant was sitting. Appellant returned the fire. Albert was hit and Lester started hollering. The firing stopped and the appellant, at Lester's direction, threw his pistol (now empty) out of the car. Lane then assisted Lester in placing Albert into the Cox car. Appellant and Lane drove off.
In the trial the judge permitted the State to show by witnesses McDowell, Britt and Lester, that appellant made threats against Lester about a week prior to the killing.
The threat apparently was the result of a dispute between appellant and Lester. One week before the fatal shooting appellant, Lester, and McDowell were riding together in Lester's truck. Appellant was driving recklessly and Lester warned him to be more careful. Appellant persisted in his haphazard driving so Lester cut the ignition off and took the keys. Appellant refused to move from behind the wheel, and Lester hit him in the face. Appellant told Lester that he was going to 'get him.' A few minutes later the three stopped to get some coffee. Inside the coffee shop and in the presence of the owner, appellant pulled a knife. As appellant was leaving he said, 'Take me to Gene Ray's (the owner of the pistol used by appellant in the shooting) and it will all be over with tonight.'
While it is true that threats against a third party are normally not admitted to show malice against the deceased, the rule is not an inflexible one. It is discussed in C.J.S.:
The trial judge also admitted in evidence, over the objection of appellant's counsel, testimony of two witnesses who quoted the appellant as having stated at Hathcock's approximately two hours prior to the killing that he would get Lester with a knife or with a .357 pistol.
We are of the opinion that the series of events recited hereinabove sufficiently connects the threats with the offense so as to evidence malice on the part of the appellant. Malice being an element of the offense of which the appellant was charged, both the threats of the previous week and the threats of the same night were admissible in evidence.
Error is also alleged on the part of the trial judge in allowing evidence of details incident to the threats. Such details as were admitted did not violate the rule set forth in State v. Clinkscales, 231 S.C. 650, 654, 99 S.E.2d 663, which prohibits testimony as to the general details of a previous difficulty.
Appellant alleges error on the part of the trial judge in excluding testimony relative to a conversation which took place between Lane and Albert just prior to the fist fight at the park. The testimony would indicate that Albert talked in a derogatory manner about Lane's girl friend. The testimony was submitted by counsel for Lane for the purpose of showing Albert's frame of mind, and showing that he (Albert) was admit the testimony, counsel for the appellant admit the testimony, counsel for the appellant stated, 'Your Honor, the defendant Albert would like to join in with the motion made by Mr. Kilgo.' The judge again declined to admit the testimony. Whether the excluded testimony prejudiced Lane's rights is a matter with which we are not concerned since he was acquitted. So far as the appellant's rights are concerned, we find no prejudice because the appellant testified that he never saw Albert. We quote from his testimony:
'A. Lester Cox...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Belcher
...to Byrd, discussed supra. On the heels of Lee, we come to State v. Maxey, 262 S.C. 504, 205 S.E.2d 841 (1974) and State v. Alford, 264 S.C. 26, 212 S.E.2d 252 (1975). Maxey and Alford upheld the "use of a deadly weapon" implied malice instruction where self-defense was submitted to the jury......
-
State v. Starnes
...either Welborn or Champlin to protect Fogle. Accordingly, he was not entitled to a charge on defense of others. See State v. Alford, 264 S.C. 26, 212 S.E.2d 252 (1975) (where defendant did not testify he was shooting for purpose other than to protect himself, he was not entitled to charge o......
-
State v. Otts
...(1992) (finding evidence in the record supported a self-defense charge rather than a defense of others charge); State v. Alford, 264 S.C. 26, 35, 212 S.E.2d 252, 255 (1975) (holding that where defendant did not testify he was shooting for a purpose other than to protect himself, he was not ......
-
Blakely v. State
...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) (previous threats against companion of victim at time of assault also admissible). Respondent was charged with murder and AB......