State v. Otts
| Decision Date | 27 June 2018 |
| Docket Number | Opinion No. 5572,Appellate Case No. 2014-000274 |
| Citation | 817 S.E.2d 540,424 S.C. 150 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Steven OTTS, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of Lexington, for Respondent.
Steven Otts appeals his conviction for the murder of Hydrick Burno, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) denying his motion for a directed verdict; (2) failing to tailor a self-defense instruction to the evidence presented; (3) instructing the jury on the law of defense of others with no accompanying explanation of the necessary elements or the burden of proof; and (4) declining to provide the jury with specific and clarifying language regarding involuntary manslaughter. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
On January 27, 2011, Steven Otts, Saca Jawea Coleman, Lakeisha Stallworth, and Antonio Valentine were out for the evening in the town of Ridge Springs in Saluda County. The group took Valentine's Ford Explorer to Orchard Park Apartments (Orchard Park), where Otts lived with Hydrick Burno's (Victim's) aunt and uncle. Valentine drove, Stallworth sat in the front passenger seat, and Coleman and Otts sat in the back.
When the group arrived at Orchard Park, Otts and Coleman (Otts's girlfriend), were arguing because Otts wanted Coleman to go home with him, but she wanted to continue partying with Stallworth and Valentine. Stallworth testified Otts was "kind of aggressive" with Coleman and was "pulling" on Coleman to get her out of the Explorer. According to Stallworth, Otts pulled Coleman's coat over her head, leaving her in only a bra because she was not wearing a shirt under her coat.1
Coleman testified that when the group arrived at Orchard Park, Otts wanted her to get out of the Explorer, but she was not ready to go because she had not "finished partying yet." She admitted the two argued but denied that Otts assaulted her in any way. Otts denied hitting Coleman but admitted the two argued. When Otts grabbed Coleman's arm to escort her from the vehicle, she refused to exit.
As Otts and Coleman continued to argue, several Orchard Park residents heard the commotion. Angela Creech, who walked outside to her apartment balcony to see what was happening, testified she could see Otts and Coleman "arguing and tussling inside the vehicle." Creech said she could hear "licks" inside the Explorer; Otts was pulling on Coleman in an effort to get her out of the vehicle, and the two were "tussling and fighting." Victim, the couple's mutual friend,2 then intervened in an attempt to break up the scuffle.
Stallworth did not remember Victim striking Otts and explained he "wasn't that type of guy." However, Creech testified Victim put his hand around Otts once and held him in a "bear hug." Creech further testified Otts said to Victim, "Motherf****r, when you let me go, I'm going to knock your punk ass out." Coleman testified Victim "kept grabbing" Otts. She heard Otts tell Victim that if he did not let him go, he was going to hit Victim. However, Coleman did not see Otts strike Victim.
Otts testified that Victim grabbed him in a "bear hug" and carried him away from the Explorer. Otts admitted telling Victim he was going to hit him if he did not let him go but denied threatening to "knock [his] punk ass out." When Otts escaped Victim's bear hug and attempted to walk back to the vehicle, Victim grabbed Otts again, ripping his coat. Otts then turned and struck Victim once on the left side of his head. Otts explained that he was "basically trying to get out of the situation" and "never meant to hurt [Victim]." When Otts threw the punch, Victim was knocked unconscious and fell to the ground, striking the back of his head on the pavement. Creech stated Victim had a seizure after falling to the ground. Stallworth testified she put her hands under Victim's head to try to stop him from seizing. Otts instructed Victim to "get up" and "stop playing."
When Creech announced she was going to call the police, Otts, Coleman, Stallworth, and Valentine left Orchard Park.3
Victim was awake and sitting on a curb when law enforcement and emergency medical services (EMS) arrived. He smelled of alcohol, was swaying, and was "a little confused." Initially, emergency medical technicians (EMTs) were unsure if the swaying and confusion were the result of Victim's head injury
or intoxication.4 However, during the transport to Lexington Regional Medical Center (LRMC), Victim's behavior changed—he became combative and uncooperative. He also showed more persistent signs of confusion, leading the EMTs to believe Victim had suffered a more serious head injury than they first recognized.
By the time Victim arrived at LRMC—about fifty minutes after EMS arrived at Orchard Park—he was unresponsive. Victim died shortly after his admission to the hospital.
According to the pathologist, Victim died from brain herniation
due to cerebral edema, which was caused by blunt-force trauma to the left side of his head. The pathologist testified Victim's death was the result of the blow to the left side of his head and not the injury he suffered when he fell and hit the ground.5 The pathologist further testified Victim suffered only two blows to the head—one on the left side of his head from the punch and the other on the back of his head from hitting the ground.
Otts remained in hiding until January 31, 2011, when he turned himself in to police. On May 4, 2011, he was indicted for murder. After a four-day trial, the jury considered the murder charge, along with the lesser-included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. The jury convicted Otts of murder.
"A jury charge which is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal." State v. Adkins , 353 S.C. 312, 319, 577 S.E.2d 460, 464 (Ct. App. 2003). "To warrant reversal, a trial judge's charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial." State v. Taylor , 356 S.C. 227, 231, 589 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2003). "It is error to give instructions which may confuse or mislead the jury." State v. Rothell , 301 S.C. 168, 169–70, 391 S.E.2d 228, 229 (1990).
Otts argues the circuit court erred in instructing the jury with the "defense of others" language requested by the State because, when used appropriately, this jury instruction presents a possible defense to a criminal charge; it is not an instruction for the State to use offensively , nor was it an accurate instruction under the facts of this case. Otts further contends the instruction was incomplete and confusing to the jury in that it failed to set forth either the necessary elements of the "defense" or any framework for its application to the facts here. We agree.
During its opening statement, the State told the jury it would present evidence establishing that "Hydrick Burno went and tried to intercede on his cousin's behalf." The State further informed the jury it would hear about "the law of defense of others; about how, if there's a family member or a friend of yours[,] and they're being attacked, that you can stand in their shoes[,] and you can try to help them[,] and you can try to save them[,] and intercede." The State concluded its opening by stating, "Burno was trying to help his cousin, Saca Jawea Coleman, and was murdered for his troubles."
On this point, the only evidence presented during the State's case-in-chief was one affirmative response from Stallworth:
During Otts's case-in-chief, Officer Russell Padgett of the Saluda County Sheriff's Office testified that Stallworth informed him "Burno came out to assist [Coleman] and try to calm [Otts] down." On cross-examination, Officer Padgett characterized Victim's actions as "coming in defense of another person, a family member." Coleman, who also testified for the defense, admitted on cross-examination that although Victim was not her "cousin by blood," he was someone she was "very close to." Coleman admitted that Victim came out to try to help her during her argument with Otts. Likewise, when the State asked Otts if Victim "came out to help [Coleman]," Otts responded, "I'm assuming." The State followed up by asking Otts if Victim was acting in defense of Coleman. Otts answered, "[Victim] came out to calm us down."
In its closing argument, the State asserted "Burno was the only person man enough there to responsibly come out and defend [Coleman]." Thereafter, the State discussed the "defense of others" doctrine, which the State characterized as a person's "right to defend a friend or family member." The State explained that "a person coming to the defense of a friend or family member stands in their shoes and can exercise any rights that they have." The State further argued that "[t]he law in this case is if one comes to the assistance of his friend or relative and takes part in a difficulty in which a friend or relative is engaged, he enters the combat on the same footing as the person to whose assistance he comes and under the same legal status."
During the charge conference, the State requested a "defense of others" charge and noted its plan to use it in a reverse, offensive posture. Specifically, the State asked the court to instruct the jury that "[i]f one comes to the assistance of a friend or relative and takes part in a difficulty in which a friend or relative is engaged, he enters the combat on the same footing as the person whose [sic] assistance he comes and under the same legal status." Otts objected, arguing that "defense of other[s] is a defense to a [criminal] charge," and noted that the State's effort...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Payne
...578, 583 (2010) ). "To warrant reversal, a trial [court's] charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial." State v. Otts , 424 S.C. 150, 155, 817 S.E.2d 540, 543 (Ct. App. 2018) (quoting State v. Taylor , 356 S.C. 227, 231, 589 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2003) ).LAW/ANALYSISI. Failure to Instruct Volunta......
-
State v. Miranda
...admitting the evidence absent proof of tampering, bad faith, or ill-motive.").2. As to the jury instruction: State v. Otts, 424 S.C. 150, 155, 817 S.E.2d 540, 543 (Ct. App. 2018) ("To warrant reversal, a trial [court's] charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial." (quoting State v. Taylo......
-
State v. Miranda
... ... handling is reasonably demonstrated, no abuse of discretion ... by the trial court is shown in admitting the evidence absent ... proof of tampering, bad faith, or ill-motive.") ... 2. As to the jury instruction: State v. Otts, 424 ... S.C. 150, 155, 817 S.E.2d 540, 543 (Ct. App. 2018) ("To ... warrant reversal, a trial [court's] charge must be both ... erroneous and prejudicial." (quoting State v ... Taylor, 356 S.C. 227, 231, 589 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2003))); ... State v. Brandt, 393 S.C. 526, ... ...
-
State v. Otts, Appellate Case No. 2018-001671
...to review whether the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court and remanding for a new trial. State v. Otts , 424 S.C. 150, 817 S.E.2d 540 (Ct. App. 2018). We now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted.DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, FEW and......