State v. Cook, 22212

• Decision Date: 13 December 1984
• Docket Number: No. 22212,22212
• Citation: 325 S.E.2d 323,283 S.C. 594
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Ora COOK, Appellant. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 323

325 S.E.2d 323

283 S.C. 594

The STATE, Respondent, v. Ora COOK, Appellant.

No. 22212.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Dec. 13, 1984.

Decided Jan. 15, 1985.

Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Carlisle Roberts, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. Claude A. Taylor, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Chief Justice:

The defendant-appellant, Ora Cook, appeals his conviction of manslaughter.

The facts of the killing are as follows: On October 2, 1982, appellant's wife, Lucilla Cook, was accompanied by Tom Hardy, husband of the deceased, on a shopping trip. Upon their return to the Cook residence, an argument arose between the appellant and Mr. Hardy over Mr. Hardy's driving the Cooks' car. The altercation began in the Cooks' yard and progressed into the Hardys' yard which adjoins. The appellant lunged at Mr. Hardy with a knife and threatened to kill him. They struggled and Mr. Hardy managed to fight the appellant off with a stick. Mrs. Alice Hardy (Tom's wife), saw the two men fighting and threw a rock at the appellant to try to get him off of her husband. The appellant ran onto the Hardy's porch in pursuit of Mrs. Hardy and stabbed her with a knife three times in the chest. Mrs. Hardy ran across the street exclaiming, "I'm stabbed!" Mrs Hardy died as a result of the wounds inflicted by the appellant.

At trial, the appellant asserted insanity as his defense. On appeal, he seeks to challenge the jury charge concerning the burden of proof for establishing insanity. Under our rule, we denied him the privilege of arguing against precedent and hereby adhere to the previous ruling on the issue in State v. Young, 238 S.C. 115, 119, 119 S.E.2d 504, cert. denied 368 U.S. 868, 82 S.Ct. 101, 7 L.Ed.2d 65 (1961), that a defendant must prove insanity by a preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.

The appellant also contends that in closing argument, the Solicitor improperly commented about Mrs. Cook's failure to testify. He argues that there was no evidence that Mrs. Cook was a material witness, and that it was misleading for the solicitor to comment on her failure to testify. We find this argument to be without merit.

The evidence revealed that the fracas occurred in the yard while Mrs. Cook was inside either her house or a neighbor's house. Her exact whereabouts are uncertain; but beyond dispute, she was in the vicinity at the time the difficulty arose upon her return from the shopping trip and during the trouble that developed promptly. It cannot be forcibly argued that she knew nothing about what was taking place in her immediate vicinity. A neighbor testified that she could hear the argument from inside her house.

More importantly, Mrs. Cook certainly knew more about her husband's mental condition, both in general and...