State v. Douglas

• Decision Date: 08 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 23279,23279
• Citation: 397 S.E.2d 98,302 S.C. 508
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. James O'Neal DOUGLAS, Appellant. . Heard

Page 98

397 S.E.2d 98

302 S.C. 508

The STATE, Respondent, v. James O'Neal DOUGLAS, Appellant.

No. 23279.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 8, 1990.

Decided Oct. 8, 1990.

David I. Bruck and John H. Blume, both of Bruck & Blume, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Attys. Gwendolyn L. Fuller and Miller W. Shealy, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. William L. Ferguson, York, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellant James O'Neal Douglas was convicted for murder, armed robbery and using a firearm in commission of the crimes. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

On August 12, 1987, around 11:30 P.M., John Newton Barber was walking home from work when he encountered the appellant and John Allen Dixon. Moments later, a shot was fired and Barber was killed. Dixon testified for the state at appellant's trial and asserted that appellant had robbed and murdered Barber. Appellant testified and admitted ownership of the murder weapon, but insisted he had loaned the gun to Dixon shortly before the shooting, and that Dixon committed the crimes. Each testified that the other acted independently in committing the offenses.

Appellant alleges the trial judge erred by admitting evidence of a prior unrelated altercation between appellant and Anthony Thoms as a means of establishing appellant's state of mind, and in permitting the state to use this evidence to attack appellant's character. On the other hand, the state asserts that evidence of the Thoms altercation went directly to the issue of appellant's state of mind or intent to murder Barber.

Evidence of crimes or bad acts other than those for which the accused is on trial are inadmissible unless the evidence tends to prove either (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) the absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or plan, or (5) identity. State v. McConnell, 290 S.C. 278, 350 S.E.2d 179 (1986); State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E 803 (1923). The evidence should not be admitted unless the trial judge can clearly perceive a connection between the extraneous bad acts and the crime for which the defendant is being tried. State v. Gore, 283 S.C. 118, 322 S.E.2d 12 (1984). "Even if evidence of other crimes is deemed relevant and admissible, the evidence may still be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice or misleading the jury." State v. Johnson, 293 S.C. 321, 360 S.E.2d 317, 319 (1987).

Thoms, a state witness, testified that he and appellant were "horseplaying" around 1:00 A.M. on August 12, 1987, when appellant produced a pistol from a purple bag, cocked it and threatened to kill Thoms. Thoms testified that he became frightened, went home and called the police. Thoms identified the murder weapon as the same gun appellant pointed at him. In addition, Thoms identified the purple bag in which appellant had been carrying the gun on the night of the murder as the same bag from which appellant produced the gun the night before. The state also called Isaiah Robinson and Roy Boozer, both of whom gave extensive testimony concerning the incident involving Thoms. On cross examination of the appellant, the solicitor probed into details of the Thoms incident, pitting appellant's version against that of the state's witnesses.

In closing argument, the solicitor asserted that testimony...