State v. Locklair

Decision Date26 June 2000
Docket NumberNo. 25161.,25161.
CitationState v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (S.C. 2000)
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Jimmy Clifton LOCKLAIR, Appellant.

Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, and Andrew J. Johnston, of Spartanburg, for appellant.

Attorney GeneralCharles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney GeneralJohn W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney GeneralDonald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney GeneralG. Robert DeLoach, III, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Holman C. Gossett, Jr., of Spartanburg, for respondent.TOAL, Chief Justice:

Jimmy Clifton Locklair("Locklair") seeks a reversal of his conviction and death sentence for the murder of Tammy Bridges("Bridges").We affirm Locklair's conviction and sentence.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involved a fatal love triangle between Locklair, Bridges, and Bridges' estranged husband Christopher Jones("Jones").While Locklair and Bridges were dating, Jones decided he wanted to reconcile with Bridges.His attempt at reconciliation led to a fatal altercation between Locklair and Jones.Locklair shot Jones three times in a church parking lot and was indicted for Jones' murder on June 5, 1995 and convicted on June 14, 1995.Bridges decided to move in with Locklair after he murdered her husband.While Locklair was free on a $50,000 bond for Jones' death, he shot and killed Bridges after she decided to move out of his home.

On April 16, 1995, the day of the fatal incident, Locklair's mother called Allen Nichols("Nichols"), a close friend of Locklair's, because she was concerned that Locklair may attempt to kill himself.Locklair's mother warned Nichols to keep Locklair away from guns.Despite these warnings, Nichols decided to go target practicing with his .22 caliber rifle and his Beretta pistol with Locklair later that afternoon.Nichols and Locklair drove to Woodruff, South Carolina to shoot wild turkeys, but the flock got away.

As they were leaving Woodruff, Locklair asked Nichols to drive by Bridges' parents' house so he could return Jones' death certificate and Bridges' social security card to her.Nichols knew that Locklair had recently broken up with Bridges and warned him not to argue with her.When they arrived at the house, Locklair attempted to call Bridges on Nichols' cell phone but it would not work.Locklair reached over and started honking the truck's horn to get Bridges' attention.Bridges and her mother, Betty Williams("Williams"), walked out to Nichols' car.Bridges asked Locklair what was wrong and asked why he had cut up her clothes.According to Nichols, Locklair told Bridges he was sorry and pleaded with her to talk to him.Bridges refused to talk to Locklair and said "no Jimmy, I'm not coming back to you."As Nichols shifted gears to prepare to leave, Locklair reached into the glove compartment and grabbed the Beretta pistol.

Nichols attempted to grab Locklair's shirt collar and Locklair pulled him out of the truck.Bridges and Williams screamed and began to run away.Nichols testified that he saw Locklair taking long strides towards Bridges and he heard Locklair pulling the trigger of the pistol repeatedly, but the safety was on.As Nichols attempted to make a running tackle, Locklair disengaged the safety and shot Bridges in the back.Nichols said he tackled Locklair after the first shot but Locklair fired two more times before they fell to the ground.The gun then struck the asphalt and fired an additional round before jamming.Locklair then stood up and told Nichols, "leave me the f * * * alone, I got to do this."

Locklair stood up after Nichols tackled him and stepped over the victim's body before walking towards the William's home.Another witness, Robert Williams, the victim's stepfather, testified that Locklair looked "like he was hunting somebody."Locklair pointed the gun at the house and attempted to fire, but the gun jammed.Nichols tackled Locklair again while he tried to fire at the house.Meanwhile, Robert Williams left the car where he was observing and ran toward Locklair and Nichols.Robert Williams grabbed the gun and wrestled with Locklair over it.He eventually dislodged the gun and it fell on the ground, discharging once.Locklair pushed Nichols aside and ran toward a neighbor's house.Locklair went twenty or thirty feet, looked back once, then ran down the street.Robert Williams attempted to shoot Locklair but the gun jammed again and did not fire.

The Woodruff Police Department issued a bulletin from the Spartanburg County Sheriffs office concerning Locklair.The search continued until 4:00 a.m. the following day, when Locklair was found at his parents' home five miles from the scene.At the police station, Locklair voluntarily waived his rights, gave a tape recorded statement, and signed a hand written confession.

On the day before the murder, Bridges stayed the night with her sister, Stacy Waddell("Waddell").Locklair came to Waddell's house early in the morning to speak to Bridges.When Locklair went back to Bridges' bedroom he was carrying an eight inch butcher knife.Waddell demanded the weapon and Locklair gave her the knife.Waddell gave the knife to William Earl Jennings("Jennings") who had come to take Locklair home.Jennings testified that Locklair flung the knife out of the window as they drove home and said "you can't do anything with a knife."

Later that day, Waddell took Bridges to Locklair's home to pick up some of her clothes and personal items.Locklair had shredded all of Bridges' clothes and pictures.Waddell also testified that some of Bridges' identification was missing.

On the day of the fatal incident, Leslie Taylor("Taylor"), a co-worker of Bridges, testified that a man called to speak to Bridges and told Taylor that "if something doesn't happen, someone is going to die."Taylor asked her supervisor to speak to the caller.Her supervisor identified the caller as Locklair.According to the supervisor, Locklair said if she did not let him speak to Bridges "someone was going to be killed."The supervisor told Locklair that Bridges was not there and he became angry and hung up the phone.

On May 18, 1995, the Spartanburg County Grand Jury indicted Locklair for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.The State served its notice of intent to seek the death penalty on September 3, 1996.The jury found Locklair guilty as charged on September 19, 1998.On September 20, 1998, the trial judge presented the following aggravating circumstances for the jury's consideration at the conclusion of the penalty phase:

1.The Appellant had a previous conviction of murder.
2.The Appellant knowingly created a great risk of danger to more than one person in a public place by means of a weapon or device which would be hazardous to the lives of more than one person.
3.The Appellant murdered two or more persons pursuant to one act or one scheme or course of conduct.

On September 22, 1998, the jury found the existence of the first and second aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.The jury recommended the death penalty and the trial judge sentenced Locklair to death.Locklair appeals his death sentence and conviction, raising the following issues:

(1) Whether the trial judge erred by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter where there was evidence Locklair was involved in a domestic dispute with the victim and the victim's mother threw a cigarette case at him immediately before he shot the victim?
(2) Whether the trial judge erred by ordering Locklair to submit to a psychiatric examination over his objection where he had already been judged fit to stand trial, was not asserting insanity, and had not given notice that he would plead guilty but mentally ill ("GBMI")?
(3) Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on the statutory aggravating circumstance contained in S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20(C)(a)(3)(1976), the "great risk of death" aggravator?
(4) Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury on the statutory aggravating circumstance contained in S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20(C)(a)(2)(1976), the "prior murder conviction" aggravator, where Locklair did not have a prior conviction for murder at the time the murder was committed and his conviction for the other murder came after the homicide in this case?
(5) Whether Locklair is entitled to a new sentencing hearing even if one of the aggravating circumstances is held to have been properly submitted?

LAW/ANALYSIS

I.Voluntary Manslaughter

Locklair argues that the trial judge erred by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter because: (1) there was evidence of a domestic dispute between Locklair and Bridges; and (2) Bridges' mother threw a cigarette case at him immediately before he shot Bridges.We disagree.

"Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation."State v. Johnson,333 S.C. 62, 508 S.E.2d 29(1998).Both heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation must be present at the time of the killing to constitute voluntary manslaughter.State v. Walker,324 S.C. 257, 478 S.E.2d 280(1996)(citations omitted).Sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation that mitigates a felonious killing to manslaughter must be such as would naturally disturb the sway of reason, and render the mind of an ordinary person incapable of cool reflection, and produce what, according to human experience, may be called "an uncontrollable impulse to do violence."State v. Gardner,219 S.C. 97, 64 S.E.2d 130(1951)(citingState v. Davis,50 S.C. 405, 27 S.E. 905(1897)).Where death is caused by use of a deadly weapon, words alone, however opprobrious, are not sufficient to constitute a legal provocation.Id. at 104, 64 S.E.2d at 134.Rather, when death is caused by the use of a...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
41 cases
  • State v. Elliott
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 4, 2001
    ...to and are inseparable from our natures." State v. Ferguson, 20 S.C. Law (2 Hill) 619, 621-622 (1835). 9. See, e.g., State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000). 10. See S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-60 (Supp.1999). 11. At trial, respondent's indictment was amended from a charge of first ......
  • Moulton v. Cartledge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • April 21, 2015
    ...is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation. State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000). The overt act that produces the heat of passion must be made by the victim. State v. Lowry, 315 S.C. 396, 399, 434 S.E.2d ......
  • State v. Shuler
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 16, 2001
    ...passion and sufficient legal provocation must be present at the time of killing to constitute voluntary manslaughter. State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000) cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 121 S.Ct. 817, 148 L.Ed.2d 701 (2001). Provocation necessary to support a voluntary mansla......
  • Williams v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Court of Appeals
    • January 20, 2015
    ...because there [was] no evidence in the record that the defendant was reasonably provoked by the victim”); State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 362, 535 S.E.2d 420, 425 (2000) (“Provocation necessary to support a voluntary manslaughter charge must come from some act of or related to the victim i......
  • Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 1 Homicide
    • United States
    • SC Crimes: Elements and Defenses (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...are to be taken into consideration, including the previous relations of the parties. 23 S.C. Jur., Homicide § 31; State v. Locklair, 535 S.E.2d 420 (S.C. 2000); State v. Cooley, 536 S.E.2d 666 (S.C. 2000) (confession of adultery no matter, content insufficient for adequate provocation); Sta......
  • § 2-7 Voluntary Manslaughter
    • United States
    • South Carolina Requests to Charge - Criminal (SCBar) Part II Offenses
    • Invalid date
    ...778 (1983) (holding that fighting is sufficient legal provocation to warrant giving voluntary manslaughter charge). ? State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000) (stating that where death is caused by use of a deadly weapon, words alone, however opprobrious, are not sufficient to......
  • A. Homicide
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter II Offenses Against the Person
    • Invalid date
    ...would be hazardous to the lives of more than one person. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20(C)(a)(3) (2003). The Court in State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000) and later in State v. Lindsey, 372 S.C. 185, 642 S.E.2d 557 (2007) had the opportunity to provide guidance on what is includ......
  • G. Insanity
    • United States
    • The Criminal Law of South Carolina (SCBar) Chapter VI Defenses
    • Invalid date
    ...that the defendant may not be competent to be tried or that the issue of his competency will be raised at trial. State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000). "The mental competency of the defendant to stand trial is a baseline inquiry by the court. In order to protect the legal p......
  • Get Started for Free