State v. King, Appellate Case No. 2016-001161
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | JUSTICE JAMES |
| Citation | 818 S.E.2d 204,424 S.C. 188 |
| Parties | The STATE, Petitioner, v. Tyrone J. KING, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 18 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-001161,Opinion No. 27826 |
424 S.C. 188
818 S.E.2d 204
The STATE, Petitioner,
v.
Tyrone J. KING, Respondent.
Appellate Case No. 2016-001161
Opinion No. 27826
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard November 15, 2017
Filed July 18, 2018
Rehearing Denied September 21, 2018
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon Jr., both of Columbia and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for Petitioner.
Howard W. Anderson III, of Pendleton; and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Respondent.
JUSTICE JAMES :
Tyrone J. King was convicted of murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, third-degree assault and battery, and pointing and presenting a firearm. The trial court sentenced King to life imprisonment for murder, a consecutive five year term for possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime, and thirty days for third-degree assault and battery.1 King appealed his murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime convictions, and the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a full Rule 404(b), SCRE, analysis regarding the trial court's admission of certain other bad act evidence. State v. King , 416 S.C. 92, 784 S.E.2d 252 (Ct. App. 2016). We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. We vacate the court of appeals' decision to remand the case for a Rule 404(b) analysis, we reverse King's convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, and we remand the matter to the trial court for a new trial on those
two charges. King's convictions for pointing and presenting a firearm
and third-degree assault and battery are unaffected by our holding, as King does not challenge those convictions.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
King shot and killed his neighbor James Galloway (Victim) inside Victim's home during the early morning hours of November 11, 2011. The State contends King then pistol-whipped Karen Galloway (Wife) and pointed the gun at both Wife and Reggie Cousar (Cousin). King fled the scene when a Marlboro County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) deputy arrived. Following a foot chase, King was found hiding under a truck. MCSO recovered Victim's house phone at the scene where King was apprehended and retrieved a bottle of liquor from King's pocket. MCSO recovered a nine-millimeter handgun with an extended magazine from the wooded area behind King's home. MCSO also found a cartridge casing and a bullet hole in Victim's master bedroom and recovered a cartridge casing and a projectile from Victim's living room. The State claims the shooting was murder. King claims the shooting was an accident.
A. MCSO Interviews of King
MCSO conducted two videotaped interviews of King after he was arrested and charged. While King has never denied he was present at the time Victim was shot, King's statements explaining the sequence of events varied greatly. In his first statement—given the morning of the shooting—King claimed a man named Aloysius McLaughlin went with him to Victim's home to purchase alcohol.2 King claimed McLaughlin unexpectedly shot Victim. At the time, King was facing charges that he had recently kidnapped and robbed McLaughlin and McLaughlin's girlfriend Melissa Graham in McColl, South Carolina (McColl charges). During this first interview, King explained to MCSO that he and McLaughlin were back on "good terms." King stated that after the shooting, he took the gun from McLaughlin, tried to calm Wife, and "waved" or "swung" the gun at her. He claimed he then gave the gun back to McLaughlin and ran from Victim's home in fear.
During his second interview five days later, King informed MCSO he went to Victim's home alone and purchased some liquor. He explained he later went back to Victim's home alone to sell a handgun he obtained from a man named "Broom." King stated that while he was showing Victim the handgun and attempting to remove the magazine from the gun, the gun accidentally discharged, shooting Victim in the face. King explained he panicked and eventually ran from Victim's home in fear. Both recorded statements contain scattered references (by both King and law enforcement) to the McColl charges and to an unrelated murder charge against King. Both sets of charges are potential "other bad acts" under Rule 404(b), SCRE.3 Over King's objection, the trial court permitted the jury to hear evidence of the pendency of these charges.
B. Pretrial Hearing
King was indicted for murder, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and pointing and presenting a firearm. During a pretrial hearing, King moved to exclude several portions of his first recorded interview. Throughout King's objections, the State and the trial court commented on the apparent technological impossibility of redacting certain statements from the recorded interview.
Since the State contends King did not preserve the evidentiary issues for appellate review, we will summarize King's objections to the trial court. During the entire pretrial review of King's first recorded interview, King made numerous objections. King moved to have a reference to the McColl charges redacted:
KING: Your Honor, at this point he just mentioned the McColl charge again. I will move to redact that part.
THE STATE: Your Honor, he only mentioned the McColl charge because [King] is saying [McLaughlin] is the one [who] murdered [Victim]. He's saying, "You mean the same guy you just robbed two weeks ago."
TRIAL COURT: I'm going to leave—let that stand.
KING: Your Honor, for the record my objection was 404(b).
TRIAL COURT: I understand.
KING: 403 and 401, Your Honor.
TRIAL COURT: I think it's appropriate based on the totality of what he's saying. Go ahead.
King next objected to a statement he made regarding an unrelated murder for which he was charged:
KING: Your Honor, at approximately 4:08—I mean 5:08:25 he said he already has murders on his record, and I move to redact that, 404(b).
TRIAL COURT: What was that specific remark?
KING: He said, "I've already got murders on my record."[4 ]
THE STATE: Your Honor, he does not have a conviction for murder on his record.
KING: And he's been charged with murder, Your Honor.
TRIAL COURT: He said—I'm going to leave it where it is. Go ahead.
King then objected to a reference to a prior incident in which he was stabbed, and the trial court ordered that discussion to be redacted.
King's second recorded interview was also played for the trial court during the pretrial hearing. King objected to a discussion of his McColl charges, and the trial court ordered that portion of the interview to be redacted.
On the morning the trial began, the State moved to admit both recorded interviews into evidence. King again noted his objections to the interviews and noted the redactions the trial court ordered the day before. King had also emailed the trial court a list of some of his objections with the specific timestamps for the record. The list was made a court's exhibit. The State then informed the trial court it was no longer seeking to admit the first portion of the first recorded interview, which included references to the unrelated murder charge and the McColl charges. King replied he objected to more than just the first portion of the video. King specifically noted his
objection to the jury hearing evidence of the prior stabbing, the unrelated murder charge, and the McColl charges. King stated:
KING: I made an objection to a prior murder and kidnapping charge at [5:08:09 through 5:08:10].
....
KING: That hasn't been redacted, Your Honor.
TRIAL COURT: Why?
KING: He mentioned that—I believe he stated on the record that he couldn't—that Marlboro County was unable to go through line by line and redact every word or every reference to anything in the statement. ...
TRIAL COURT: Well, this equipment is not the best in the world. They have made every effort to do it. It's not as sophisticated as it should be, but you couldn't redact that part?
THE STATE: Beg the Court's indulgence. That was one that at the time, and I recall that section where the Court ruled that that part could stay in. I can't recall exactly—
TRIAL COURT: If I ruled that I'm not going to beat a dead horse to death. If I ruled—did I rule it stays?
THE STATE: You did.
After further colloquy concerning the technological impossibility of redacting comments made in the interviews, the trial court concluded the comments regarding the McColl charges and the unrelated murder charge need not be redacted.
C. Trial Testimony
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ostrowski, Appellate Case No. 2018-000423
...(1901) ). Non-criminal bad acts that fall under one of the exceptions must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) (citing State v. Fletcher , 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ). "Further, even though the evide......
-
State v. Ostrowski, 5872
...1901)). Non-criminal bad acts that fall under one of the exceptions must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) (citing State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008)). "Further, even though the evidence i......
-
State v. Hopkins, Appellate Case No. 2017-001224
...545 S.E.2d 827, 830 (2001). The burden is "on the opponent of the evidence to establish inadmissibility" under Rule 403. State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). "A trial [court's] decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evi......
-
State v. Sledge, Appellate Case No. 2016-000641
...the opposite: whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). The misstated test "incorrectly places the burden on the proponent of the evidence to establish ad......
-
State v. Ostrowski, Appellate Case No. 2018-000423
...(1901) ). Non-criminal bad acts that fall under one of the exceptions must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) (citing State v. Fletcher , 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ). "Further, even though the evide......
-
State v. Ostrowski, 5872
...1901)). Non-criminal bad acts that fall under one of the exceptions must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. See State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 (2018) (citing State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008)). "Further, even though the evidence i......
-
State v. Hopkins, Appellate Case No. 2017-001224
...545 S.E.2d 827, 830 (2001). The burden is "on the opponent of the evidence to establish inadmissibility" under Rule 403. State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). "A trial [court's] decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evi......
-
State v. Sledge, Appellate Case No. 2016-000641
...the opposite: whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. King , 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818 S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018). The misstated test "incorrectly places the burden on the proponent of the evidence to establish ad......