State v. Crosby, No. 25682.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 584 S.E.2d 110,355 S.C. 47 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2003 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Leon CROSBY, Petitioner. |
| Docket Number | No. 25682. |
355 S.C. 47
584 S.E.2d 110
v.
Leon CROSBY, Petitioner
No. 25682.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard June 12, 2003.
Decided July 21, 2003.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General W. Rutledge Martin, and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
Justice WALLER.
We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in State v. Crosby, 348 S.C. 387, 559 S.E.2d 352 (Ct.App.2002). We reverse.
FACTS
Crosby was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in connection with the December 28, 1998 shooting death of Lavaris Dunham (Victim). He asserts the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the law of involuntary manslaughter. We agree.
On the day of the shooting, a number of people were gathered at the apartment of Monica Tucker and Shawanda Knox. Several of the people had spent the previous night at the apartment, including Crosby. Shawanda and her brother, Ryan, left their jobs at Western Sizzlin and went to the apartment where they found several people inside drinking and playing cards. Shawanda asked Monica to make the people leave and, when Monica refused to do so, Shawanda
Believing he had diffused the situation the police officer left. Shawanda and Monica began fighting again, along with Monica's cousin Jenelle Outten, and Shawanda's brother Ryan. As Shawanda was leaving, Monica and Jenelle followed her down the stairs and another fight broke out on the landing. According to the statement Crosby gave to police shortly after the incident, Monica and Jenelle started "double teaming" Shawanda, so he and Ryan tried to break up the fight, and he attempted to pull one of them off of Shawanda. At that point, Victim told him "Don't put your hand on her ... Matter of fact, don't touch her at all." Crosby turned around and then saw Victim "charging at me with his hand behind his back. I went in my pocket and pulled that gun out. I closed my eyes and pulled the trigger. I didn't even know I pulled the trigger. I was scared. I seen my life in danger. I didn't know how to react."1 Victim died of a gunshot wound which severed the carotid artery and transected the spinal cord.
At trial, Shawanda Knox testified that as the group got into a car and fled the scene, Crosby told them it was an accident and he didn't mean to do it. Ryan Knox also testified Crosby had told him he didn't mean to do it. Another witness, Calvin Hill, testified Crosby told him "he didn't mean to do it" and that the gun had slipped.
Crosby testified that as he attempted to break the girls apart, the Victim told him not to put his hand on Jenelle. Crosby told him he didn't want to fight, and Victim pushed him. Crosby attempted to push his girlfriend Ketura back into the apartment, and he glanced back and saw someone charging at him. He saw him "coming at me with his hand behind his back. So I couldn't tell if he had a weapon or not.... When I glanced back, I seen his hands behind his back. So I ain't know what kind it was. That's when I
During the charge conference, defense counsel waived his request to charge the defense of accident, agreeing "there was no testimony it was an accidental shooting."2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reese, No. 3790.
...requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence). We hold Crosby was entitled to a jury charge on the law of involuntary manslaughter. 355 S.C. 47, 51-53, 584 S.E.2d 110, 111-113 (2003) (emphasis in original and emphasis Additionally, Knoten is instructive in this case. The State argued......
-
State v. Stanley, No. 4007.
...the issue by a motion for mistrial); State v. Crosby, 348 S.C. 387, 398-399, 559 S.E.2d 352, 358-59 (Ct.App.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (holding that no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and Page 4......
-
State v. Sams, No. 27447.
...long enough to cause serious harm, as recognized by those present at the scene by the fact that they called 911.4 See State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (improper to hold that any evidence of an intentional shooting negates evidence from which any other inference may be dra......
-
State v. Sams, Appellate Case No. 2011-195886
...long enough to cause serious harm, as recognized by those present at the scene by the fact that they called 911. 4. See State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (improper to hold that any evidence of an intentional shooting negates evidence from which any other inference may be d......
-
State v. Reese, No. 3790.
...requested charge on an issue raised by the evidence). We hold Crosby was entitled to a jury charge on the law of involuntary manslaughter. 355 S.C. 47, 51-53, 584 S.E.2d 110, 111-113 (2003) (emphasis in original and emphasis Additionally, Knoten is instructive in this case. The State argued......
-
State v. Stanley, No. 4007.
...the issue by a motion for mistrial); State v. Crosby, 348 S.C. 387, 398-399, 559 S.E.2d 352, 358-59 (Ct.App.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (holding that no issue is preserved for appellate review if the objecting party accepts the judge's ruling and Page 4......
-
State v. Sams, No. 27447.
...long enough to cause serious harm, as recognized by those present at the scene by the fact that they called 911.4 See State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (improper to hold that any evidence of an intentional shooting negates evidence from which any other inference may be dra......
-
State v. Sams, Appellate Case No. 2011-195886
...long enough to cause serious harm, as recognized by those present at the scene by the fact that they called 911. 4. See State v. Crosby, 355 S.C. 47, 584 S.E.2d 110 (2003) (improper to hold that any evidence of an intentional shooting negates evidence from which any other inference may be d......