State v. Marin

• Decision Date: 23 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 27613.,Appellate Case No. 2013–002001.,27613.
• Citation: 415 S.C. 475,783 S.E.2d 808
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Manuel Antonio MARIN, Petitioner.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

415 S.C. 475

783 S.E.2d 808

The STATE, Respondent,

v.Manuel Antonio MARIN, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2013–002001.

No. 27613.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard April 8, 2015.

Decided March 23, 2016.

Chief Appellate Defender, Robert M. Dudek and Appellate Defender, David Alexander, both of Columbia, for petitioner.

Attorney General, Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General, John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General, Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia; and Solicitor, Barry J. Barnette and Assistant Solicitor, Russell D. Ghent, both of Spartanburg, for respondent.

Justice KITTREDGE

.

Petitioner Manuel Antonio Marin was convicted of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Marin appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed, rejecting his argument that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that a person acting in self-defense has the right to continue shooting until the threat has ended. State v. Marin, 404 S.C. 615, 745 S.E.2d 148 (Ct.App.2013)

. We issued a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision. We affirm as modified.

I.

On July 20, 2008, both Marin and Nelson Tabares (Victim) attended a Colombian Independence Day festival, followed by an after-party at a Greenville nightclub. According to Christopher McDonald, the nightclub's bouncer, Victim was extremely intoxicated and had difficulty standing and walking, but was not aggressive. Due to Victim's condition, nightclub staff members, including McDonald and owner Larry Rodriquez, determined that it would not be safe for Victim to drive. As a result, McDonald and Rodriquez attempted to find Victim a ride home.¹

Marin told McDonald that he knew where Victim lived and volunteered to drive Victim home. However, after McDonald helped Victim into the back seat of Marin's vehicle, Marin said that he needed Victim's address so that he could put it in his navigation system. McDonald looked at Victim's identification and gave the address to Marin. Marin, accompanied in the front seat by his former brother-in-law, Alfredo Jimenez, then began driving Victim home.

Marin testified that Victim was unruly and combative during the drive. According to Marin, Victim told him, "I'm sorry, but you got to go," then reached over the backseat and placed him in a headlock. Marin said he then decided not to take Victim home, but to drive to a public location and seek help. Marin further testified that Victim attempted to grab the steering wheel. However, Jimenez stated that Victim became upset and began fighting with Marin over control of the steering wheel after Marin drove past the road on which Victim's home was located and would not stop.²

It is undisputed that Marin drove into Spartanburg County, retrieved a gun from the glove compartment, and shot Victim twice in the back of the head. Rather than stopping immediately, Marin continued driving until he arrived in downtown Spartanburg. Several witnesses observed Marin and Jimenez arguing in the street and a passerby called the police.

Marin was subsequently indicted for murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime. Marin pleaded not guilty to both charges.

While Marin claimed he shot Victim in self-defense, he did not request any specific language for the self-defense charge at the charge conference, only requesting that the charge include an instruction that he had a right to act on appearances. Further, Marin did not object when, during closing arguments, the State asserted that Marin's firing of two shots was evidence of malice and supported a murder conviction, nor did he ask for any additional instructions before the trial court charged the jury, in relevant part, as follows:

In this case the defendant has ... raised what is known in the law as the defense of self-defense. The law recognizes the right of every person to defend himself or herself or a friend, relative[,] or another from death or from sustaining serious bodily harm. To do this a person may use such force as is reasonably necessary even to the point of taking human life where such is reasonable.

The right of self-defense is founded upon necessity, either actual or reasonably apparent necessity. And it is a complete defense to a charge of an unlawful homicide should you find that it exists based upon your evaluation of the evidence produced during the trial of this case. The existence of self-defense entitles a person charged with the commission of an unlawful homicide to a verdict of not guilty.

And although the defendant has raised the defense of self-defense, the burden of proof is not on the defendant to prove the existence of self-defense. As I have already told you, the burden is always upon the state to prove the defendant's commission of the crime alleged against him beyond a reasonable doubt. And this would therefore necessarily require that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of self-defense.

But in order for you to consider the defense of self-defense you obviously must know what the elements are. And there are four basic elements that are required before self-defense may be established.

First, it must be shown that the defendant was without fault in bringing on the immediate difficulty which gave rise to the necessity of using deadly force which resulted in the taking of human life.

One cannot provoke, initiate[,] or otherwise through his own fault bring about a difficulty and then claim the right of self-defense in the use of deadly force against an attack which was caused by that provocation.

Secondly, it must be shown that at the time the fatal act was committed the defendant actually believed that he was in imminent danger of losing his life or sustaining serious bodily injury, or some other person was, or that the defendant actually was in such imminent danger. And the term imminent danger means an immediate or present danger and not a past or future danger.

And, thirdly, if the defense is based upon a belief of imminent danger, then it must be shown that the belief was reasonable, that is a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage would have entertained the same belief.

If the defendant or the other person being defended actually was in imminent danger, then it must be shown that the circumstances were such as would warrant a person of ordinary prudence and courage to inflict the fatal injury in order to save himself or some other person from death or serious bodily injury.

In other words, it must be shown that a reasonably prudent person of ordinary firmness and courage if acting under the same or similar circumstances would have reached the same conclusion and entertained the same belief.

Deadly force is only appropriate when necessary and may only be exercised where the defendant entertains a reasonable belief that he or some other is about to sustain loss of life or suffer serious bodily harm.

The law of self-defense encompasses preventative action taken to protect one's own life without another [sic] if such action is taken in anticipation of imminent danger of losing one's life or sustaining serious bodily injury.

A defendant has a right to act upon appearances. He may be mistaken. The law does not hold someone to a refined assessment of the danger as might be accomplished having an adequate time to reflect, provided however that the defendant has acted as a person of ordinary reason, firmness[,] and courage would have acted or should have acted in meeting the appearance of the danger.

In other words, one does not have to wait until his or her assailant gets the advantage, for one always has the right under the law of self-preservation to prevent another from getting an advantage.

Again, there is however a requirement of objectivity. Any such belief must be reasonable, that is a reasonable and prudent person if acting under the same or similar circumstances would have so believed or would have also been warranted in acting as the defendant did.

And, fourthly, it must be shown that the defendant had no other means of avoiding the danger of losing his life or sustaining the infliction of serious bodily injury other than to act as he did under the particular circumstances as existed, because, as I have stated, self-defense is founded upon necessity.

Now, if you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt as it relates to a proof of an unlawful homicide after considering all of the evidence received during this case, including any evidence relating to the issue of self-defense, then it would be your duty to resolve that reasonable doubt in favor of the defendant and find him not guilty.

After the jury was charged, but prior to deliberations, the trial court provided an opportunity for the parties to note any exceptions to the charges. It was at this juncture that Marin first requested that the trial court instruct the jury that "if the defendant is justified in defending himself or others in firing the first shot, then the defendant—also [may] continue—to continue [sic] shooting until it is apparent that the danger of death or serious bodily injury has ... completely ended."

Marin represented to the trial court that State v. Rye, 375 S.C. 119, 651 S.E.2d 321 (2007)

, mandated such a charge. However, the trial court reviewed Rye and noted that only the dissenting opinion mentioned that language, and the reference was in the context of a different legal issue. Marin then acknowledged that Rye was not on point. When the trial court asked Marin if there were any other cases that approved of such a charge, Marin's counsel responded, "I'm not a walking encyclopedia." Thus, in the absence of any supporting authority, the trial court declined to give the requested charge.

A short time later, the jury requested further instruction on malice and voluntary manslaughter, but did not ask for clarification or reinstruction on self-defense. After the trial...