State v. Gilliam, 22916
| Decision Date | 21 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 22916,22916 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Odell GILLIAM, Appellant. . Heard |
Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey of the South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia, and Solicitor Joseph J. Watson, Greenville, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN) and murder. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of ten years and life imprisonment. Appellant appeals only the murder conviction on the ground he was entitled to a charge on a lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. We reverse the murder conviction and remand for a new trial.
Appellant lived with Daisy Mae Reed for seven years until he left her to marry Hannah in 1984. On Christmas Day 1986, appellant assaulted Daisy Mae at her place of work by hitting her on the head with a walking stick and slashing her severely with a switch blade. As a result, appellant was convicted of ABHAN at the trial of this case.
A few hours after the assault on Daisy Mae, appellant shot and killed Daisy Mae's lover, John Austin, at the Brown Derby Cafe. For this crime, he was convicted of murder. Appellant claims he was entitled to a charge of voluntary manslaughter, based on the following version of the facts he presented at trial.
Appellant was angry with Daisy Mae because she persisted in making harassing phone calls to appellant's wife, Hannah. Daisy Mae taunted appellant during their conversation at her place of work, provoking his attack. He then went to the Brown Derby to look for John Austin because Daisy Mae had told appellant Austin wanted to see him. Appellant testified he had no intention to shoot Austin.
Appellant found Austin at the Brown Derby and motioned for him to come outside. The two men began arguing and Austin made threatening statements to appellant. Austin then took a gun from his pocket and shot at appellant before appellant could reach his own gun. Appellant shot back at Austin, killing him.
At appellant's request, the trial judge charged self-defense. He refused, however, to charge voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense, ruling that self-defense and voluntary manslaughter are mutually exclusive as a matter of law.
Appellant correctly contends this was error. Both self-defense and the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter should be submitted to the jury if supported by the evidence. State v. Linder, 276 S.C. 304, 278 S.E.2d 335 (1981). The rationale for this rule is that the jury may fail to find all the elements of self-defense but could find sufficient legal provocation and heat of passion to conclude the defendant was guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Id.
The evidence in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dickey
...330 S.C. at 549 n. 18, 500 S.E.2d at 495 n. 18; State v. Nichols, 325 S.C. 111, 118, 481 S.E.2d 118, 122 (1997); State v. Gilliam, 296 S.C. 395, 396, 373 S.E.2d 596, 597 (1988). The rationale for this rule is that the jury may fail to find all the elements for self-defense but could find su......
-
State v. Nichols
...manslaughter are not mutually exclusive and should both be submitted to the jury if supported by the evidence. State v. Gilliam, 296 S.C. 395, 373 S.E.2d 596 (1988). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, there was evidence from which the jury could find appellant gu......
-
The State v. Starnes
...voluntary manslaughter may coexist and that a charge on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter may be warranted. See State v. Gilliam, 296 S.C. 395, 373 S.E.2d 596 (1988) (holding the evidence supported both a self-defense charge and a voluntary manslaughter charge). Turning to the facts o......
-
State v. Holland
...392 S.E.2d 184 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Brightman v. State, 336 S.C. 348, 520 S.E.2d 614 (1999); and State v. Gilliam, 296 S.C. 395, 373 S.E.2d 596 (1988). The instant case is clearly distinguishable from these In Knoten, one of the defendant's statements given to police indica......