State v. Brewton
| Decision Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5912,Appellate Case 2018-001572 |
| Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Lance Antonio Brewton, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard November 10, 2021.
Appeal From Spartanburg County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Appellate Defender Adam Sinclair Ruffin, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, and Solicitor Barry J. Barnette, of Spartanburg all for Respondent.
Lance Antonio Brewton appeals his convictions for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Brewton contends the trial court erred by (1) failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter and the defense of accident; (2) prohibiting his testimony regarding witchcraft and hearing voices in his head; and (3) allowing the State to impeach him with his 1999 robbery conviction. We affirm.
On the morning of September 25, 2017, Brewton arrived at Natalie Niemitalo's house. Brewton and Niemitalo had been in an on-again, off-again relationship for two years. After their friend Kevin Schuerman arrived, the three decided to go purchase cigarettes and drinks. Niemitalo got into the driver's seat of her mother's black, two-door Honda Civic, Brewton got into the back seat on the passenger side and Schuerman got into the passenger seat.
Once in the car, Niemitalo began putting on makeup. After about five minutes, Brewton exited the car, walked around to the driver's side, and began arguing with Niemitalo because he wanted to drive. Shortly after the argument began Schuerman heard a gunshot. Schuerman exited the car and ran towards Niemitalo's garage because he thought he had been shot. After Schuerman realized he had not been shot, he returned to the driveway and watched Brewton pull Niemitalo out of the car, get into the driver's seat, and drive away.
Schuerman approached Niemitalo and saw she was gasping for air and in pain. Schuerman called 9-1-1 and held a towel on Niemitalo's wound until first responders arrived. While first responders were treating Niemitalo, Brewton drove by her house in the Honda Civic. Brewton drove by Niemitalo's house a second time, and an officer initiated a traffic stop by turning on his blue lights; however, Brewton continued driving for twenty-three miles. Officers apprehended Brewton after he collided with a vehicle in the driveway of his home.
First responders airlifted Niemitalo to a hospital, but she died from a single gunshot wound. The doctor that performed Niemitalo's autopsy determined she bled to death after a bullet entered her upper-left torso and exited nine-and-a-half inches lower on the right side of her back. Police collected physical evidence associated with the shooting including the Honda Civic, Brewton's gun, a fired bullet, and a spent shell casing. Brewton was indicted for murder, possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, escape, driving under suspension, and failure to stop when signaled by an officer using a blue light.
A forensic psychologist evaluated Brewton and determined he was competent to stand trial for an unrelated federal weapons charge.[1] In a pretrial motions hearing, the State presented Brewton's mental evaluation and moved to prevent him from presenting any evidence regarding mental illness or hearing voices. The State argued any testimony about mental illness or hearing voices would not be relevant because the forensic psychologist concluded Brewton did not have a mental illness and was competent to stand trial. Alternatively, the State contended that if the testimony was relevant, it would be highly prejudicial.
Brewton argued he was not presenting the testimony about hearing voices as a defense for his actions; rather, Brewton argued he should be allowed to present the testimony as an alternative explanation to the State's assertion that he fled due to a guilty mind. Initially, the trial court indicated the testimony would not be relevant and would confuse the jury because Brewton did not suffer from a mental illness; however, the trial court delayed making a final determination until after Brewton proffered the testimony.
Additionally, the State disclosed it planned to introduce Brewton's federal weapons conviction and two common law robbery convictions from 1999 and 2008. Brewton argued the federal weapons conviction was not relevant, but the State maintained it would preclude an accident jury instruction because Brewton was not allowed to possess a weapon. Brewton also moved to prevent the State from using any remote convictions; again, the trial court delayed making a final determination.
Brewton proceeded to trial for murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime after he pled guilty to escape, driving under suspension, and failing to stop when signaled by an officer. Schuerman testified that Brewton was "acting erratic" and "on edge" when he got to Niemitalo's house but recalled Brewton's behavior had not concerned him. Schuerman stated the argument between Brewton and Niemitalo was not out of the ordinary and elaborated he had seen Brewton and Niemitalo in worse arguments; however, Schuerman clarified he had never seen any violence during their arguments. Schuerman also testified he did not see Brewton with a gun the morning of Niemitalo's death.
An expert in firearm examination, Chad Smith, testified the gun involved did not have an external safety mechanism, which is typically thought of as a button that would prevent the gun from firing. Smith explained the gun would fire once five-and-a-half pounds of pressure was applied to its trigger, even if the pressure was applied unintentionally. Smith opined:
Still, Smith explained the gun would not fire unless its slide had been pulled back while it was loaded with ammunition. Smith testified he performed several tests on the weapon and concluded the recovered bullet and spent shell casing both came from Brewton's gun.
At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, Brewton proffered his testimony regarding witchcraft and hearing voices in his head. Brewton testified he believed Niemitalo's mother and her friend Aaron[2] practiced witchcraft and one of them had cast a spell on him that caused him to hear the voices. Brewton admitted Niemitalo's mother denied practicing witchcraft and Niemitalo never told him her mother practiced witchcraft; nevertheless, Brewton believed Niemitalo's mother practiced witchcraft because he believed she had also cast a spell on Aaron and Niemitalo told him she knew about the voices. Brewton estimated he had intermittently been under a spell for eight or ten months.
Brewton described "experiencing paranoia" at Niemitalo's house on the morning of her death because the voices were telling him his family was being murdered. Brewton explained he got in the car's back seat because the voices were telling him people were trying to kill him. Brewton testified that while the group was sitting in the car, he observed a cement truck drive past Niemitalo's house, and the voices told him it was going to bury his family alive.
Brewton recalled he wanted to drive so he could follow the cement truck, and he felt that Niemitalo was not putting on her makeup "fast enough." Brewton stated he left Niemitalo's house to find the cement truck. Brewton explained he did not stop to check on Niemitalo the first time he drove by her house because paramedics were already there and he wanted to keep looking for the cement truck. Brewton testified he drove by Niemitalo's house a second time because he could not find the cement truck and the voices had stopped speaking to him. Brewton admitted he did not stop the second time because police officers were there and he had drugs in the car.
The State objected to Brewton's proffer at its conclusion and argued it was filled with hearsay, not relevant, and highly prejudicial if relevant. Brewton responded he had the absolute right to testify, the hearsay would be omitted in front of the jury, and the probative value of his testimony would not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Brewton insisted he should be allowed to give an alternative reason for leaving the scene other than a guilty mind.
The trial court ruled Brewton could not testify about witchcraft or hearing voices. The trial court found Brewton's proffer was largely based on hearsay and the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighed any probative value because it seemed to give rise to an unasserted mental illness defense. Additionally, the trial court determined Brewton's right to testify was not violated because he was not entirely prevented from testifying. The trial court explained Brewton could testify he was fearful and felt like he needed to leave Niemitalo's house.
After Brewton elected to testify, [3] the trial court ruled both of his robbery convictions were admissible because they were part of a "continuous course of conduct." The trial court also ruled that if the convictions were remote, their probative value substantially outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice. Brewton argued his 1999 conviction was remote because it was a separate charge from his 2008 conviction. The trial court reiterated Brewton's convictions were a continuous criminal history because they were similar offenses that...
To continue reading
Request your trial