State v. Lewellyn
| Decision Date | 05 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22065,22065 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. David Wesley LEWELLYN, Appellant. . Heard |
Asst. Appellate Defender William Isaac Diggs, of S.C. Commission of Appellate Defense, Columbia, and John T. Taylor, Charleston, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia; and Sol. Charles M. Condon, Charleston, for respondent.
A jury convicted Appellant of malicious injury to real property for having driven his car into a residence. He appeals, asserting (1) that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a continuance to obtain a witness and (2) that the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury by lessening the State's burden of proof and by shifting the burden of persuasion to Appellant to rebut a presumption. We reverse.
Malice is an element of the offense of malicious injury to real property. S.C.Code Ann. Section 16-11-520 (Supp.1983). That section makes one guilty if he "... wilfully, unlawfully, and maliciously cut, mutilate, deface or otherwise injure any ... house ...". The State must prove the malicious element beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not on the accused person. The trial judge charged the jury that This charge is not inconsistent with traditional charges heretofore used in this State. State v. Weeks, 185 S.C. 277, 194 S.E. 12 (1937).
More recently, courts including our own, agree that a presumption must not shift the burden of proof to the person on trial. The jury could have reasonably understood the trial judge's charge to require either that the accused person prove that he did the act without malice or that he disprove the implication of malice. This was error and a new trial must be held. State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d 781 (1983); State v. Cooper, 279 S.C. 301, 306 S.E.2d 598 (1983).
The trial bench is reminded that the proper charge on implied malice is that suggested in Elmore or State v. Mattison, 276 S.C. 235, 277 S.E.2d 598 (1981). These charges do not use the expressions "rebuttable", "reasonable explanation" or "unless the contrary be proved".
Inasmuch as a new trial is ordered, the other issue need not be discussed.
REVE...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hyman v. Aiken, Civ. A. No. 84-1763-1J.
... 606 F. Supp. 1046 ... William Gibbs HYMAN, Petitioner, ... James AIKEN, Warden, CCI, and Travis Medlock, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents ... Civ. A. No. 84-1763-1J ... United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division ... March ... ...
-
State v. Gaskins, 22217
...appear at first blush that reversible error is present. See State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d 781 (1984) and State v. Lewellyn, 198 S.C. 199, 314 S.E.2d 326 (1984). Harmless error does not require a new Murder is defined by § 16-3-10 Code of Laws (1976) as follows: "Murder is the ki......
-
Yates v. Aiken, 22614
... ... This Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. State v. Yates, 280 S.C. 29, 310 S.E.2d 805 (1982), cert. den., 462 U.S. 1124, 103 S.Ct. 3098, 77 L.Ed.2d 1356 (1983). Yates' application for post ... ...
-
State v. Peterson
...permissive inferences depending on its view of the evidence. State v. Woods, 282 S.C. 18, 316 S.E.2d 673 (1984); State v. Lewellyn, 281 S.C. 199, 314 S.E.2d 326 (1984); State v. Elmore, 279 S.C. 417, 308 S.E.2d 781 In State v. Elmore, supra, this Court set forth an exemplary malice charge. ......
-
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: the categorical and other "exceptions' to liability for Fifth Amendment takings of private property far outweigh the "rule".
...harm by protecting the natural environment of shorelands"). (220) M & I v. Town of Somers, 414 N.W.2d 824, 830 (Wis. 1987). (221) 314 S.E.2d 326 (S.C. (222) Id. at 329 (quoting Just, 201 N.W.2d at 768). (223) Id. (footnotes omitted). (224) 496 S.E.2d 643 (S.C. Ct. App. 1998), rev. grant......