State v. Hughes, Appellate Case No. 2014-000294

Decision Date18 January 2017
Docket NumberAppellate Case No. 2014-000294,Opinion No. 5465
Citation796 S.E.2d 174,419 S.C. 149
CourtSouth Carolina Court of Appeals
Parties The STATE, Respondent, v. Walker Manning HUGHES, Appellant.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Caroline M. Scrantom, all of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for Respondent.

MCDONALD, J.:

Walker Manning Hughes appeals his convictions for murder, first-degree burglary, grand larceny, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) admitting prejudicial hearsay testimony and (2) denying his motion to require the State to open fully on the law and the facts during closing arguments. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Hughes's mother, Karen Hughes (Victim), was the beneficiary of two trusts which were to be divided between Hughes and his brother, Larry Hughes, upon her death. Two days before Victim's murder, Hughes was released from the Greenville County Detention Center after pleading guilty to forging checks written on Victim's trust account. Hughes received a probationary sentence and was ordered to have no contact with Victim.

Victim's coworker, Kim Jones, testified that on Friday, April 8, 2011, Victim left work early to meet a repairman and reapply for a restraining order against Hughes. Victim was last seen alive by a neighbor that afternoon. At that time, Victim was wearing a brown track suit. Neighbors reported the lights at Victim's home were off that Friday night and remained off throughout the weekend. On Monday, April 11, neighbor Max Few went to Victim's house after learning from Jones that Victim had not arrived at work. Few called police after noticing Victim's car was gone, Victim's dog was uncharacteristically locked on the back porch, and the screen door to the porch had been cut. Police forced entry onto the property by cutting a padlock off the front gate and breaking through the front door, which had been secured by a deadbolt.

Inside, police discovered Victim's badly beaten body1 surrounded by bloody footprints.2 Police also discovered a bloody knife on the kitchen counter, as well as a washed claw hammer and brush in the washing machine.3 In Victim's bedroom, police found the contents of her purse spread out on the bed and several drawers that had been opened and stacked on the floor.4 Sergeant Chris Miller of the Greenville County Sheriff's Office testified the crime appeared to be personal because neither jewelry nor electronics were taken and many of the rooms were undisturbed. The only items missing from the home were Victim's car, her car keys, and a garage door opener.

On the evening of April 11, police found Hughes in Victim's car at a gas station in Laurens County. When police searched the car, they discovered the missing car keys and Victim's garage door opener in the driver's side door pocket. Additionally, they found Hughes's blood around the driver's seat as well as on a pair of Conair electric clippers and their box. Police found a small cut on one of Hughes's index fingers.

DNA testing at Victim's home revealed that a swab of blood taken from the upstairs bedroom closet and a swab of blood from the living room contained Victim's blood mixed with that of someone else. Specifically, the State's forensic DNA analyst, Brian Browning, testified the bedroom closet swab contained a mixture of three individuals, with Victim as a major contributor and two minor trace alleles identified with Hughes and an unknown individual. Browning explained that alleles are "individual pieces of a DNA profile" and cautioned that he was "not speaking about a [complete] profile." Browning further explained that the unknown contributor could be the result of instrument limitations in detecting individual pieces of a DNA profile or "the possible masking of certain alleles due to a mixture sample where several contributors can overlap each other." On cross-examination, Browning clarified that minor trace alleles were detected and "they included some of the alleles of Walker Manning Hughes as well as [an] unknown individual."

Concerning the living room swab, Browning testified Victim was a major contributor to the sample and there was also a minor male contributor. He opined there was "a high probability of it being a mother/son mixture" and was able to exclude Hughes's brother as a donor. Conversely, the expert stated he could not exclude Hughes and the probability of including someone at random as a minor contributor was one in two hundred forty-one among the Caucasian population. Michael Isakson, who knew Hughes from their time at the Greenville County Detention Center, testified Hughes was angry that Victim had obtained a restraining order against him and that Hughes offered him $70,000 to beat Victim to death. Isakson stated that when he declined the offer, Hughes indicated he would have to do it himself. According to Isakson, Hughes further claimed that, despite the restraining order, he planned to go to Victim's house when he was released to "collect some money and stuff."

Sheryl Slavensky, Hughes's friend and past romantic interest, testified that sometime in 2009 or 2010, she had a conversation with Hughes, during which he was furious and blamed Victim for his parents' divorce. According to Slavensky, Hughes stated he wanted to kill Victim and "bash her head in." He said he "wanted it to be slow and he wanted to be able to watch her face." Slavensky testified she informed Victim of the threat.

Hughes took the stand in his own defense. He testified that when he was released from jail on April 6, he walked to Victim's house, where he arrived at dusk on April 8. He then waited until Victim returned from walking her dog and spoke with her outside the home until she invited him inside. According to Hughes, he told Victim he had a young daughter whom Victim did not know about. When Hughes revealed the child's mother had doubts about the child's paternity, Victim instructed him to go get the child. Hughes claimed Victim then gave him $140 and escorted him to the garage, where she allowed him to take her car. Hughes stated Victim also gave him a Conair haircut kit, some candy, and packages of t-shirts and underwear.

Hughes then testified about his efforts in the following days to find the child's mother. When someone reported that the child's mother worked at a nearby Walmart, he traveled to several area stores to locate her. Hughes claimed that while parked at the Simpsonville Walmart, he cut his finger on a broken meth pipe and had to stop the bleeding with items in the car. After further travels, Hughes eventually ran out of gas at the Laurens County gas station where he was apprehended. According to Hughes, he thought Victim had reported the car stolen and he "choked up" when an investigator told him she had been murdered.

LAW/ANALYSIS
I. Hearsay Testimony

Hughes argues any testimony concerning the reasons Victim feared him was inadmissible hearsay and highly prejudicial. Specifically, Hughes challenges testimony by Margo Green, Ben Leaphart, Few, and Marion Beachum. We find that even if some portion of this "fear" testimony was inadmissible, Hughes has failed to demonstrate the prejudice necessary to establish reversible error.

Before trial, the State indicated it planned to introduce evidence that Victim feared Hughes. The State relied on State v. Weston , 367 S.C. 279, 625 S.E.2d 641 (2006), and argued the fear testimony was relevant to the issue of whether Victim would have given Hughes permission to use her car. The trial court's preliminary ruling was that Weston was "very much on point" and Rule 803(3), SCRE, would permit such testimony.

Green, Victim's longtime friend, testified that on April 8, Victim stated she was upset because Hughes had been released without her knowledge and she would have to "be especially careful now that he was back out on the street." On cross-examination, Green admitted that in a February 2011 email, Victim indicated Hughes's incarceration was "bittersweet" but that she had slept better since he was in jail. On redirect, Green stated Victim was "always afraid" and "on guard" when Hughes was not in jail and would lock herself in her bedroom with a deadbolt at night.

Leaphart, Victim's estate attorney, testified Victim indicated she was uncomfortable around Hughes, had some verbal confrontations with him, and was concerned about his "drug use and his lifestyle."

Few testified that on the day before the murder, Victim asked him to "watch out" for her because Hughes was out of jail and she feared Hughes would "come in and kill her." Few described Victim as frustrated and "very scared" during the conversation.

Beachum, Victim's trust officer, testified Victim indicated she was "deathly afraid" of Hughes and feared that if he ever got her alone, he would kill her. Beachum noted that Victim never expressed that level of fear toward her estranged husband or Hughes's brother.

"In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." State v. Washington , 379 S.C. 120, 123, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008). "A ruling on the admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." Id. at 123–24, 665 S.E.2d at 604. "The improper admission of hearsay is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice." Weston , 367 S.C. at 288, 625 S.E.2d at 646.

" ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, SCRE. Rule 803(3), SCRE, provides that a statement "of the declarant's then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Daise, Appellate Case No. 2013-002394
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 2017
    ...statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed’ is not excluded by the hearsay rule. State v. Hughes, 419 S.C. 149, 155, 796 S.E.2d 174, 178 (Ct. App. 2017). "Our supreme court has held that ‘while the present state of the declarant's mind is admissible as an excepti......
  • State v. Bell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2020
    ...(2006) )."The improper admission of hearsay is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice." State v. Hughes , 419 S.C. 149, 155, 796 S.E.2d 174, 177 (Ct. App. 2017) (quoting State v. Weston , 367 S.C. 279, 288, 625 S.E.2d 641, 646 (2006) ). Additionally, "[a circuit court]'s ......
  • People v. Payne, Court of Appeals No. 18CA0283
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • November 14, 2019
    ...its rebuttal because the defendant was prejudiced by having no "opportunity to rebut the State’s new argument"); State v. Hughes , 419 S.C. 149, 796 S.E.2d 174, 181 (App. 2017) (holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudicial error, where the trial court allowed the prosecutor ......
  • State v. Gary
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 2019
    ... The State, Respondent, v. Kevin Lamar Gary, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2016-001603 No. 2019-UP-405Court of Appeals of South ... See State v ... Hughes, 419 S.C. 149, 160, 796 S.E.2d 174, 180 (Ct. App ... 2017) ("The ... ...
  • 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