State v. Battle, 5222.
| Decision Date | 22 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 5222.,5222. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Julian Deandre BATTLE, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2011–203746. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Greenville County, C. Victor Pyle, Jr., Circuit Court Judge.
Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.
Appellant Julian Deandre Battle appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the trial court erred in (1) refusing to charge the jury on involuntary manslaughter, and (2) charging the jury that it could consider evidence of Appellant's flight in determining his guilt. We reverse and remand for a new trial because there is evidence to support an involuntary manslaughter charge.
On December 25, 2009, Appellant attended a gathering with a few relatives and friends—some of whom invited guests of their own, such as Rafael Dodd (Victim)—at the Park West Apartments in Greenville, South Carolina. During the gathering, an argument began between two of the attendees. Appellant attempted to end the argument; however, in doing so, Appellant became involved in an altercation with Victim. During the scuffle, Victim was fatally shot. None of the witnesses to the altercation saw the weapon that was fired.
At trial, Appellant testified as to what transpired during his altercation with Victim. According to Appellant, Victim approached him in an aggressive manner and proceeded to push him and brush up against him. Appellant asserted he “told [Victim] to keep his hands off of me,” and Victim responded by pulling out a gun. Appellant then described the struggle that ensued:
Appellant testified he “never actually grabbed the gun.” However, he indicated his hand may have touched the trigger. Throughout his testimony, Appellant maintained he was not carrying a gun on the night of the shooting, and Victim was shot with his own gun.
Appellant's cousin, Clintonian Dupri Owens, corroborated Appellant's testimony that Victim was the aggressor and initiated the altercation. Additionally, Owens claimed that while Appellant was out on bond, Appellant told him “[Victim] pulled a gun out and [Victim] wanted to shoot him so [Appellant] turned [the gun] around and that was it.” Owens testified he did not know Appellant to carry a gun. The State subsequently called Owens's girlfriend, Mikeya Shumate, as a witness. Shumate claimed she observed Appellant carrying a gun on another occasion; however, she admitted she did not see a gun on Appellant on the night of the shooting.
Iona Ooten, a forensic officer with the Greenville County Forensic Division, testified that when she arrived at the crime scene, she found Victim lying on the ground wearing a holster and also found a .45 caliber firearm lying next to his body.2 Ooten stated no other firearms were found at the crime scene, nor were any bullet fragments or cartridgecasings. Ooten also testified she was unable to find any fingerprints on the firearm, magazine, or any of the bullets because it had been raining heavily that day.
Investigator Laura Jones testified she interviewed Appellant shortly after his arrest. She explained that Appellant refused to write a statement, but permitted her to take notes as he described the incident to her. She read aloud her notes, which indicated: Investigator Jones testified she was present when the firearm found at the crime scene was unloaded. She described the firearm as being capable of holding seven bullets total when fully loaded. According to Investigator Jones, it would be “physically impossible” to add additional rounds to the firearm “without breaking the spring [inside the magazine].” Investigator Jones stated she believed the firearm found at the crime scene was not the murder weapon because it was “fully loaded.” However, she admitted she did not have the firearm tested to verify whether or not it had been fired on the night of the shooting.
James Armstrong, who was qualified as a firearm's expert, testified the firearm recovered from the crime scene had a maximum capacity of six rounds in the magazine, plus an additional round in the chamber. He indicated the firearm was fully loaded with “brass case hollow point projectile[s].” Armstrong explained that wounds from a hollow point projectile are generally identifiable because the projectile is designed to hit a target and then stop and expand as it transfers energy to the target.
Dr. Michael Ward, chief medical examiner for Greenville County, testified he did not find any projectiles or bullet fragments in Victim's body. Dr. Ward indicated he was not able to determine the caliber of bullet that killed Victim. However, he explained that it was “[u]nusual, but certainly possible” for a hollow point projectile to travel through the human body without leaving any fragments behind.
At the close of the case, Appellant requested a jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter. Appellant argued that pursuant to Casey v. State, 305 S.C. 445, 409 S.E.2d 391 (1991), and State v. Light, 363 S.C. 325, 610 S.E.2d 504 (Ct.App.2005) ( Light I ), rev'd on other grounds, 378 S.C. 641, 664 S.E.2d 465 (2008) ( Light II), a charge of involuntary manslaughter was warranted because there was evidence of a struggle over the gun. The State argued this case did not involve a “true struggle” because Appellant successfully managed to grab Victim's hand and point the gun back at Victim. The trial court declined to charge involuntary manslaughter.
The trial court ultimately charged the jury on murder, voluntary manslaughter, self-defense, and accident. The jury convicted Appellant of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The trial court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment for the murder charge and five years' imprisonment for the weapons charge.
“Generally, the trial judge is required to charge only the current and correct law of South Carolina.” State v. Brown, 362 S.C. 258, 261, 607 S.E.2d 93, 95 (Ct.App.2004). “To warrant reversal, a trial judge's refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant.” Id. at 262, 607 S.E.2d at 95.
Appellant argues the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on involuntary manslaughter in light of his testimony that Victim was shot while the two men struggled over Victim's gun. We agree.
“Involuntary manslaughter is defined as (1) the unintentional killing of another without malice but while engaged in an unlawful activity not naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm; or (2) the unintentional killing of another without malice but while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others.” State v. Mekler, 379 S.C. 12, 15, 664 S.E.2d 477, 478 (2008). “Involuntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder only if there is evidence the killing was unintentional.” Tisdale v. State, 378 S.C. 122, 125, 662 S.E.2d 410, 412 (2008). “Evidence of a struggle between the defendant and the victim over a weapon supports submission of an involuntary manslaughter charge.” Id.
“The law to be charged must be determined from the evidence presented at trial.” State v. Rivera, 389 S.C. 399, 404, 699 S.E.2d 157, 159 (2010). “In determining whether the evidence requires a charge on a lesser included offense, the court views the facts in a light most favorable to the defendant.” State v. Brayboy, 387 S.C. 174, 179, 691 S.E.2d 482, 485 (Ct.App.2010). “A trial court should refuse to charge the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter only where there is no evidence the defendant committed the lesser offense.” Mekler, 379 S.C. at 15, 664 S.E.2d at 479 (emphasis added).
Appellant cites Light II, for the proposition that his testimony, by itself, was sufficient to warrant an involuntary manslaughter charge. He submits that because South Carolina applies an “any evidence” standard, it is irrelevant that there was conflicting evidence showing Victim's gun was not the murder weapon. On the other hand, the State contends the instant case is distinguishable from Light II because it involves a struggle over a weapon that was not used in the killing. Moreover, the State cites to both Tisdale and Casey as further support that evidence of a struggle will only support an involuntary manslaughter instruction if the struggle was for control over the murder weapon.
In Casey, 305 S.C. at 446, 409 S.E.2d at 391–92, the defendant accidentally shot the victim while struggling with a third person over a gun. Our supreme court noted that it had previously recognized evidence of a struggle between only the defendant and the victim as sufficient evidence for submission of an involuntary manslaughter instruction to the jury. Id. at 447, 409 S.E.2d at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hough v. Cartledge
...584 S.E.2d 110 (S.C. 2003); State v. Burriss, 513 S.E.2d 104 (S.C. 1999); Casey v. State, 409 S.E.2d 391 (S.C. 1991); State v. Battle, 757 S.E.2d 737 (S.C. Ct. App. 2014); State v. Brayboy, 691 S.E.2d 482 (S.C. Ct. App. 2010). Several of these cases involved fact-intensive inquiries into th......
-
State v. Johnson
...charge. Nevertheless, because the charge was not given, we proceed to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Battle , 408 S.C. 109, 121-22, 757 S.E.2d 737, 743-44 (Ct. App. 2014) (conducting a harmless error analysis when the circuit court erred in failing to give the requested involuntary......
-
State v. Hemingway
...to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."); State v. Battle, 408 S.C. 109, 119, 757 S.E.2d 737, 742 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The task of determining the weight of the evidence lies within the exclusive province of the jury."); People ......
-
State v. Andrews
...Const. art. V, § 21 ("Judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact, but shall declare the law."); State v. Battle, 408 S.C. 109, 119, 757 S.E.2d 737, 742 (2014) ("The task of determining the weight of the evidence lies within the exclusive province of the jury."); Pantovich ......