State v. Guderyon

• Decision Date: 07 December 2022
• Docket Number: 5955,Appellate Case 2017-002168
• Parties: The State, Respondent, v. Philip David Guderyon, Appellant.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent, v. Philip David Guderyon, Appellant.

No. 5955

Appellate Case No. 2017-002168

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

December 7, 2022

Heard October 12, 2021

Appeal From Horry County Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of Columbia, and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of Conway all for Respondent.

MCDONALD, J.

Philip Guderyon appeals his conviction for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, arguing the circuit court erred in failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict and in instructing the jury on self-defense and intent. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On October 16, 2015, Justin Hodges (Victim) and his girlfriend Mariah Stevens, went to Carlos 'n Charlie's in Myrtle Beach to play pool and meet some friends. Appellant and his friend, James "Jimer" Petrocine, were also at Carlos 'n Charlie's that night. At some point Appellant punched Victim in the face or head; Victim suffered severe brain trauma and ultimately died. Once he was identified, arrested, and transported to the Myrtle Beach Police Department, Appellant admitted to striking Victim but claimed he acted in self-defense. The Horry County grand jury subsequently indicted Appellant for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN).

At trial, witnesses described the events at Carlos'n Charlie's, the bouncers' response to Victim's injury, and the subsequent law enforcement investigation. Jimer testified he was out on the dance floor when Stevens approached him. Jimer was playing with Stevens's breasts when Victim grabbed his arm and said "that's my girlfriend." Jimer responded, "well you can have your girl," and the two men shook hands. According to Jimer, at that point, "[i]t was done; it was over with. There was no extra beef with it really." However, just as Jimer was turning away, he "felt some wind come over [his] shoulder" and heard "like a hit, and then [Victim] was on the ground." Jimer testified he did not feel threatened by Victim, he was not scared, and he was not in need of protection because there "was nothing to protect." He did not see any punches thrown, nor did he see what caused Victim "to go down." Jimer believed Appellant was standing next to the bar when Victim hit the floor, but he later learned Appellant was the person who struck Victim.

Stevens's account differed-Stevens claimed she "went to give [Jimer] a hug and he touched my breast." "So I told him not to touch me and I went and said something to [Victim], and he went and talked to [Jimer]." After the two men talked, they all played pool together and "everything was fine." Stevens never witnessed any aggression from either man. As Stevens and Victim were leaving, Stevens went to the restroom and Victim stood against a wall toward the entrance talking to someone^[1] while he waited for her, but when Stevens returned, "he was gone." Stevens did not see what happened, but she was "certain that there was no sort of physical altercation or anything" before she went to the restroom.

Other witnesses recounted the events that occurred while Stevens was in the restroom. It is undisputed that when he was struck and fell to the floor, the club's bouncers did not wait for medical personnel to arrive before moving the unconscious Victim. Instead, they dragged him through the bar, dropping him inside at least once before they left him outside. Victim was then transported to Grand Strand Medical Center where he underwent brain surgery.

Hospital staff called the Myrtle Beach Police Department in an effort to determine Victim's identity; they gave law enforcement two phones, two sets of keys, and a wallet, in which officers found an identification card. Officers then went to Broadway at the Beach, where Carlos 'n Charlie's is located, and "started walking through the parking lot clicking key fobs." When a car chirped, the police ran the tag and learned the vehicle belonged to Victim. Inside, officers found a woman's purse and some mail addressed to the victim and two other individuals. They then searched Facebook for Victim's name, seeking a photograph or other information that might assist the investigation. Officers also went Carlos 'n Charlie's to gather video surveillance.

Dr. Joseph Cheatle, the neurosurgeon who treated Victim at Grand Strand, testified Victim suffered a subgaleal hematoma on the back of his head as well as a subdural hematoma on the right frontal lobe of his brain. He explained:

[A]nytime you have an injury or a stop, just like when you're in a car and you push on the brakes real hard and the seat belt holds you, the brain does the same thing where it can basically glide and that causes what's called a [contrecoup]. In other words, the opposite injury. So, you can have either [coup], which means at the direct site, or a [contrecoup] injury. So, what happens is that you have something that hits you, you can have the exact opposite so contra meaning opposite, [coup] means area of injury. You have the opposite area that actually has the hemorrhage, and so that's what it appears that happened to [Victim] was he had a force applied to the back of his head; but the front of his head on the exact opposite trajectory received the bleed.

Dr. Cheatle performed a decompressive craniotomy to open a skull flap and relieve the pressure on Victim's brain. However, after several days, Victim's brain began to swell. In an effort to save Victim's life, doctors performed a second surgery to remove his frontal lobe. Dr. Cheatle testified that although Victim suffered a vascular skull fracture, he did not have a black eye nor any facial bruising. In his opinion, "[Victim] had an assault to the back of his head." Dr. Cheatle admitted on cross-examination that while he had no knowledge of the specific mechanism of Victim's injury, the force to the back of Victim's head was caused by a single blow. This blow could have come from human contact, such as a punch, an object employed by a human being like "a bat, a blunt object, or pipe wrench," or even a hard surface like a brick wall.

At the close of the State's case, Appellant moved for a directed verdict on the basis that the State failed to prove causation as to Victim's injury, specifically the mechanism of the blow to the back of his head. Appellant argued Dr. Cheatle's testimony created an uncertainty entitling him to an acquittal as a matter of law. Yet, Appellant conceded he told police he struck Victim in the face, and it was possible Victim suffered the brain trauma as a result of falling and striking his head on the floor.

In response, the State argued the circumstantial evidence, including the video surveillance, demonstrated Appellant sucker-punched Victim in the back of the head. When the circuit court asked whether the State was "shifting gears" and arguing Appellant could have punched Victim in the front of his head, the State claimed it was not pursuing a frontal blow theory due to Dr. Cheatle's testimony and Victim's lack of facial bruising. Still, the State eventually conceded a jury could determine Victim received a frontal blow and the fatal injury resulted from his head striking the floor. The State emphasized it was undisputed Appellant punched Victim and great bodily injury resulted from the blow to the back of Victim's head.

The circuit court denied Appellant's motion, stating it "was a close call." The circuit court elaborated:

I've reviewed the case law and it deals with the existence of evidence and, even though the State-I don't know that there's evidence that proves their theory or where a reasonable juror can rely upon beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a sucker punch to the back of the head, they certainly have presented evidence that there was a punch by the [Appellant], that created great bodily injury to the victim and coupled with-what was it the doctor- well, that's substantiated by Dr. Cheatle's testimony of the great bodily injury, and [Jimer]'s testimony that no, there was no hassle, we shook hands, we were okay, and then I felt this whoosh come over my shoulder.

What I was wrestling with and I want to put it on the record is what do you do when, yes, there is enough evidence of a crime but not based upon the State's theory, I mean, I don't see where there is any evidence of a sucker punch to the back of the head, but that's the State's case, that's the State's theory, that's what the State is going on. Now, they have raised the argument in defense of the directed verdict, that it doesn't matter. Well, that hasn't been their theory at all along. I can't find a case on point in that regard. And so based upon that, I'm gonna go ahead and I'm gonna deny your motion although it is the State's theory that there is a sucker punch to the back of the head. But I think there is enough evidence to get to the jury that there was a punch that caused-there is evidence that it was a likelihood or did cause great bodily injury and based upon [Jimer]'s testimony that we were okay gets around the self-defense at this juncture.

During the defense's case, Ambrose Heavener-who met Appellant while the two were jailed at the Horry County Detention Center-testified he was at Carlos 'n Charlie's on the night of the incident. He recalled "there was an altercation" between two men, which progressed from a loud argument, but "it wasn't really a fight per [se], it was just, you know, [a] standoff, with a, you know a swing and that was it." The two men stood "chest to chest, face to face, it looked like they were going at it pretty good for a minute there and, you...