State v. Foust, No. 24534

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWALLER; FINNEY
Citation479 S.E.2d 50,325 S.C. 12
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Brad Christopher FOUST, Appellant. . Heard
Decision Date03 October 1996
Docket NumberNo. 24534

Page 50

479 S.E.2d 50
325 S.C. 12
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Brad Christopher FOUST, Appellant.
No. 24534.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 3, 1996.
Decided Dec. 2, 1996.

Robert M. Pachak of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Caroline Callison Tiffin, Columbia, and Solicitor Dudley Saleeby, Jr., Florence, for respondent.

WALLER, Justice:

Appellant, Brad Christopher Foust, (Foust) was convicted of first degree burglary, assault and battery with intent to kill (ABIK), and possession of a knife during commission of a violent crime. He was respectively sentenced to thirty years, twenty years, and five years, to be served consecutively. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in refusing to charge the jury it must find a "specific intent to kill" before Foust could be convicted of ABIK.

FACTS

On December 13, 1993, Jerri Hatchell (Victim) was stabbed in the chest by Foust when she returned home from work and discovered him burglarizing her home. At trial, the State introduced a letter written by Foust in which he claimed he never intended to hurt Victim.

In charging the jury, the trial court defined ABIK as follows: What is Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill? Assault and Battery with Intent to Kill is the

Page 51

infliction of injury upon a human being with malice aforethought. There must be malice, or there can be no intent to kill.... 1

After the charge, Foust requested the Court instruct the jury on the "specific intent to kill" required to prove ABIK. The request was denied and the jury found Foust guilty of ABIK. Under the facts of this case, we find the charge given sufficient and, accordingly, affirm Foust's convictions.

DISCUSSION

South Carolina caselaw on the requisite intent to commit ABIK is ambiguous. See McAninch and Fairey, The Criminal Law of South Carolina, 194-197 (3rd Ed.1996). The ambiguity arises from the fact that ABIK has been defined as the unlawful act of a violent nature to the person of another with malice aforethought, either express or implied. State v. Hinson, 253 S.C. 607, 172 S.E.2d 548 (1970). Courts of this state have traditionally compared ABIK to murder, instructing the jury that "if the offense would have been murder had the victim died as a result of the assault and battery, then the appropriate offense is ABIK rather than ABHAN." State v. Scott, 269 S.C. 438, 450, 237 S.E.2d 886 (1977). As this Court has recognized that a specific intent is not required to commit murder, 2 the logical inference is that, likewise, a specific intent is not required to commit ABIK. A review of the cases addressing this issue supports this result.

The seminal case in this State on this issue is State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167, 179-180, 130 S.E. 747, 751 (1925), in which we stated:

assault and battery with intent to kill contains all the elements of murder except the actual death of the person assaulted; so that before the accused can be convicted of this charge, the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt ... that if the party assaulted had died as a result of the injury, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • Gilbert v. Moore, Nos. 96-12
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 22, 1998
    ...an unjustified or inexcusable specific intent to kill constitutes malice, a specific intent to kill is not required. See State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12, 479 S.E.2d 50, 51 & n. 2 In its popular sense, the term "malice" conveys the meaning of hatred, ill-will, or hostility toward another. In its......
  • State v. Patterson, No. 4069.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 9, 2006
    ...523, 377 S.E.2d 570 (1989)). A jury charge which is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal. State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12, 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 Patterson relies on State v. Matthews, 291 S.C. 339, 353 S.E.2d 444 (1986......
  • State v. Lee-Grigg, No. 4237.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 16, 2007
    ...S.E.2d at 607). "[I]ntent may be shown by acts and conduct from which a jury may naturally and reasonably infer intent." State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12, 16, 479 S.E.2d 50, 52 n. 4 (1996); see State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803, 809 (1923); State v. Murray, 72 S.C. 508, 52 S.E. 189, 191 ......
  • Howard v. Moore, No. 95-4017
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • December 9, 1997
    ...was exculpatory for Fifth Amendment purposes and in no way diminished Howard's legal blameworthiness for the murder. See State v. Foust, 479 S.E.2d 50, 51 (S.C.1996) (holding that wrongful intent to injure another may give rise to finding of malice to support verdict of murder) (citing Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • Gilbert v. Moore, Nos. 96-12
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 22, 1998
    ...an unjustified or inexcusable specific intent to kill constitutes malice, a specific intent to kill is not required. See State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12, 479 S.E.2d 50, 51 & n. 2 In its popular sense, the term "malice" conveys the meaning of hatred, ill-will, or hostility toward another. In its......
  • State v. Patterson, No. 4069.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • January 9, 2006
    ...523, 377 S.E.2d 570 (1989)). A jury charge which is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal. State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12, 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996); State v. Hoffman, 312 S.C. 386, 440 S.E.2d 869 Patterson relies on State v. Matthews, 291 S.C. 339, 353 S.E.2d 444 (1986......
  • State v. Lee-Grigg, No. 4237.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 16, 2007
    ...S.E.2d at 607). "[I]ntent may be shown by acts and conduct from which a jury may naturally and reasonably infer intent." State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12, 16, 479 S.E.2d 50, 52 n. 4 (1996); see State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803, 809 (1923); State v. Murray, 72 S.C. 508, 52 S.E. 189, 191 ......
  • Howard v. Moore, No. 95-4017
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • December 9, 1997
    ...was exculpatory for Fifth Amendment purposes and in no way diminished Howard's legal blameworthiness for the murder. See State v. Foust, 479 S.E.2d 50, 51 (S.C.1996) (holding that wrongful intent to injure another may give rise to finding of malice to support verdict of murder) (citing Stat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT