State v. Peake

Decision Date20 September 1989
Docket NumberNo. 23266,23266
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Allen Stewart PEAKE, Appellant. . Heard

Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda Hagler Haile of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia; and Sol. Holman C. Gossett, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellant Allen Stewart Peake was initially convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. This Court reversed appellant's conviction and remanded for a new trial. State v. Peake, 291 S.C. 138, 352 S.E.2d 487 (1987). Appellant was retried, found guilty and again sentenced to life imprisonment. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

First, appellant contends the trial judge erred by not granting a directed verdict motion based upon the state's failure to produce sufficient evidence. The appellant relies on State v. Schrock, 283 S.C. 129, 322 S.E.2d 450 (1984), which states that if circumstantial evidence is presented, such evidence must constitute positive proof of facts and circumstances which reasonably tend to prove guilt, and from which guilt may be fairly and logically deduced, to the exclusion of any other reasonable hypothesis.

Schrock is not dispositive. This Court has held that the trial judge shall submit the case to the jury if there is any evidence, direct or circumstantial, which reasonably tends to prove the guilt of the accused, or from which the guilt of the accused may be fairly and logically deduced. State v. Edwards, 298 S.C. 272, 379 S.E.2d 888 (1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 246, 107 L.Ed.2d 196 (1989); State v. Irvin, 270 S.C. 539, 243 S.E.2d 195 (1978); State v. Littlejohn, 228 S.C. 324, 89 S.E.2d 924 (1955).

In this case, the state presented evidence that appellant was seen by witnesses driving his car behind the victim's car, headed in the direction of the murder scene. Appellant's car was later seen parked at the crime scene with the victim's car. Moreover, there was evidence that fibers found at the crime scene were identical to carpet fibers found in appellant's car. We find that the sufficiency of the state's evidence warranted the trial judge's denial of appellant's motion for a directed verdict.

The appellant's second contention is that the trial judge improperly admitted into evidence the testimony of state's witness Patty Tucker. Tucker testified that appellant offered to sell marijuana to Lark Lawson, the murder victim, seven to ten days prior to the victim's death. Appellant claims this testimony was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. We agree.

Generally, when alleged prior bad acts have not resulted in arrest, indictment or conviction, evidence of such crimes is inadmissible. State v. Diddlemeyer, 296 S.C. 235, 371 S.E.2d 793 (1988); State v. Smith, 279 S.C. 440, 308 S.E.2d 794 (1983). Evidence of prior criminal acts which are independent and unconnected to the crime for which an accused is on trial is inadmissible for purposes of proving that the accused possesses a criminal character or has a propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged. State v. Johnson, 293 S.C. 321, 360 S.E.2d 317 (1987); State v. Green, 261 S.C. 366, 200 S.E.2d 74 (1973)....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Nelson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 6, 1998
    ...the accused possesses a criminal character or has a propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged." State v. Peake, 302 S.C. 378, 380, 396 S.E.2d 362, 363 (1990). We find the evidence clearly inadmissible under these standards. As the trial judge himself recognized, its only relev......
  • State v. Slocumb
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • August 16, 1999
    ...the trial judge ruled Slocumb was competent to stand trial. 2. 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923). 3. See State v. Peake, 302 S.C. 378, 380, 396 S.E.2d 362, 363 (1990) ("Evidence of prior criminal acts which are independent and unconnected to the crime for which an accused is on trial is ina......
  • State v. Richardson
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 5, 2004
    ...possesses a criminal character or has a propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged." (quoting State v. Peake, 302 S.C. 378, 380, 396 S.E.2d 362, 363 (1990))). We disagree with Richardson's contention and find the evidence concerning the Foundation and Richardson's involvement i......
  • State v. Brooks, 2973.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 5, 1999
    ...possesses a criminal character or has a propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged'") (quoting State v. Peake, 302 S.C. 378, 380, 396 S.E.2d 362, 363 (1990)).3 However, we must affirm the trial court's decision if its error can be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT