State v. Phillips

Decision Date20 April 2016
Docket NumberNo. 27607.,Appellate Case No. 2015–000351.,27607.
CitationState v. Phillips, 416 S.C. 184, 785 S.E.2d 448 (S.C. 2016)
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Donna Lynn PHILLIPS, Petitioner.

E. Charles Grose, Jr., of Grose Law Firm, of Greenwood, for petitioner.

Attorney General, Alan M. Wilson and Assistant Attorney General, J. Benjamin Aplin, both of Columbia, for respondent.

After careful consideration of the cross-petitions for rehearing, the Court grants the State's petition for rehearing, dispenses with further briefing, and substitutes the attached opinion for the opinion previously filed in this matter. With regards to Phillips's petition for rehearing, the Court is unable to discover that any material fact or principle of law has been either overlooked or disregarded, and hence, there is no basis for granting a rehearing. Accordingly, Phillips's petition for rehearing is denied.

/s/Costa M. Pleicones , C.J.

/s/Donald W. Beatty , J.

/s/John W. Kittredge , J.

/s/Kaye G. Hearn , J.

/s/Jean H. Toal , A.J.

Justice HEARN.

Donna Lynn Phillips was convicted of homicide by child abuse and sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment in the death of her grandson (Child). The court of appeals affirmed her conviction. State v. Phillips, 411 S.C. 124, 767 S.E.2d 444 (Ct.App.2014). Phillips now argues the court of appeals erred in affirming the denial of her motion for directed verdict because it considered the testimony offered by a co-defendant as well as Phillips' own testimony in its analysis. Although we agree the court of appeals erred in disregarding State v. Hepburn,

406 S.C. 416, 753 S.E.2d 402 (2013), we ultimately find the denial of Phillips' directed verdict motion was proper and we affirm as modified.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On Monday, March 17, 2008, paramedics responded to a 911 call reporting a child not breathing. Upon arriving at the house, paramedics encountered Latasha Honeycutt, Child's mother, outside on the porch. After entering the home they discovered twenty-one-month-old Child lying on the floor of his bedroom “all alone, cold, not breathing, no pulse, just laying [sic] there.” Child was transported to Baptist Easley Hospital and was determined to be in an opiate-induced cardiac arrest. After resuscitation, Child was taken by helicopter to Greenville Memorial Hospital. Ultimately Child was pronounced brain dead and removed from life support; the cause of his death was documented as a hydrocodone1 overdose.

During the course of the police investigation, it was discovered that Child had been in the care of his father, Jamie Morris, and his paternal grandmother, Phillips, the weekend preceding his death. At that time, Phillips had a prescription for Tussionex2 , which contains hydrocodone and she was eventually arrested and charged with homicide by child abuse. The State proceeded to trial against Phillips, who was tried jointly with Morris, who was charged with aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse, and Honeycutt, who was likewise charged with homicide by child abuse.

At trial, the State presented the testimony of Detective Rita Burgess of the Pickens County Sheriff's Office, who interviewed and took statements from the three defendants. Honeycutt told her Child was with Morris and Phillips from the afternoon of Friday, March 14, 2008, until the evening of Sunday, March 16, 2008. She stated that when Child arrived home around 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m., he was fussy and extremely sleepy; therefore, Honeycutt immediately put him to bed. She checked on him when she woke up around 8:30 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. the following morning, but he was still sleeping. She returned at 11:00 a.m., found Child unresponsive, and awoke Brandon Roper, her boyfriend who lived with her; at that point she called 911.

Phillips spoke with Detective Burgess at Greenville Memorial Hospital and told her Child had trouble sleeping and experienced “frightmares” where he would wake up fighting and crying. Phillips further stated Child had a cough and seemed congested, so Morris gave him generic Tylenol3 on Sunday. Detective Burgess also noted that during their conversation, Phillips made “random statements” about Lortab, and that she hoped [Child] didn't get any of her Lortab ” or she hoped [Child] did not get her sister's Lortab.4

Charlie Lark, an investigative consultant in Pickens County, also testified about his interviews with Phillips and Morris. He noted that Morris informed him Phillips had a prescription for cough medication, but Morris stated he never saw Phillips medicate Child over the course of the weekend. Morris further explained Phillips kept her Tussionex in a wire-mesh pumpkin at the top of her closet. Although Phillips retrieved the medication on two occasions in Child's presence, Morris did not see Child ingest any of Phillips' medication; however, he did note that Child played with the Tussionex bottle while Phillips had it out of the pumpkin. Additionally, Lark stated Phillips informed him Child played with her “medicine bottles,” but the tops were on them so she did not believe he could have ingested anything. She further stated although she was concerned she may have dropped a bottle on the floor and Child picked it up, she never witnessed him consume any medication.

Two witnesses testified as to the results from the tests performed on Child's blood and urine samples. The supervisor of the chemistry department at Baptist Easley Hospital testified about the drug screen performed on Child's urine and noted the results indicated the presence of hydromorphone, which is a metabolite of the opiate hydrocodone. Robert Foery, a forensic toxicologist, testified as to tests performed on the urine and blood taken from Child. Foery stated the tests revealed chlorpheniramine5 and hydrocodone in the blood, as well as hydrocodone, hydromorphone, and chlorpheniramine in the urine. Foery stated hydrocodone and chlorpheniramine are both found in Tussionex. He further testified that the concentration of hydrocodone in Child's blood was 102 nanograms per milliliter and that the therapeutic range for an adult is 10 to 40 nanograms per milliliter. Foery could not opine on the dosage that was likely administered to Child, but stated he believed this could have been a repetitive dosing. Additionally, he testified the first dose would have been given some twenty-four to thirty-six hours prior to the blood being drawn at 12:30 p.m. on Monday, March 17, 2008. On cross-examination, Foery also stated that Lortab contained acetaminophen in addition to hydrocodone, and because there was no acetaminophen found in the samples, he did not believe Child ingested Lortab.

The State also presented testimony from a chemistry expert who analyzed the Tussionex bottle retrieved from Phillips' home and who opined it contained both chlorpheniramine and hydrocodone. The coroner also testified, stating he concluded Child's death was a homicide caused by an overdose of hydrocodone. Without objection, he also noted that the hydrocodone “came from the grandmother's home ... in the form of Tussionex.” He determined Tussionex caused the death because of the presence of chlorpheniramine and hydrocodone in Child's bloodstream.

At the close of the State's evidence, Phillips moved for directed verdict arguing there was no evidence presented she gave any drugs to anybody” nor was evidence presented from which a jury could conclude she did so with extreme indifference to human life. The trial court denied the motion.

Each defendant presented a defense. Phillips testified she did not give Child any medication, stating “I was not raised that way. I would not give a child any kind of medicine that was not prescribed for them. I would never give a child anything under the age of two years old.” She further stated there was no way for Child to have gotten into the pumpkin without her knowledge because it was on the top shelf out of his reach and because they never left him alone.

Honeycutt called Kayla Roper, her boyfriend's sister, in her defense, who testified as to the events of Monday, March 17, 2008. She specifically described how at Baptist Easley Hospital she was near Phillips and Morris and overheard Phillips indicate that she gave Child some cough medicine over the weekend, stating “surely to God that's not what is wrong.”

At the close of the evidence, Phillips again moved for directed verdict, which was denied. The jury ultimately convicted Phillips and she was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment.6

Phillips appealed, arguing the State failed to present substantial circumstantial evidence that she acted with extreme indifference. Prior to oral argument at the court of appeals, but subsequent to the filing of her initial brief, this Court decided State v. Hepburn, 406 S.C. 416, 753 S.E.2d 402 (2013), which adopted the waiver rule, but noted an exception to when testimony is offered by co-defendants.7 Id. at 436, 752 S.E.2d at 412. Phillips' appellate counsel submitted a letter to the court listing Hepburn as a supplemental citation, but did not specify the proposition for which it was being cited. During oral argument, the court of appeals focused on Kayla Roper's testimony and the fact it provided direct not circumstantial evidence, ignoring that under Hepburn, her testimony could not be considered in reviewing the denial of directed verdict.

Ultimately, the court of appeals affirmed her conviction. Specifically, the court found Kayla Roper's testimony provided direct evidence of child abuse therefore, relying on Phillips' testimony that she would never give medicine to Child coupled with the medical evidence of the extreme levels of hydrocodone within Child's blood, there was direct and circumstantial evidence presented of extreme indifference sufficient to withstand Phillips' directed verdict motion. Phillips, 411 S.C. at 134–36, 767 S.E.2d at 448–50. Phillips filed a petition for rehearing, arguing the court of appeals erred in...

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
20 cases
  • State v. Frantz
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 30 Diciembre 2022
    ...consistent with the position taken by the federal circuit courts of appeals and the majority of state courts."); State v. Phillips , 416 S.C. 184, 191 n.7, 785 S.E.2d 448 (2016) ("Under the waiver rule, a defendant who presents evidence in his own defense waives the right to have the court ......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 14 Julio 2021
    ...a suspicion of the accused's guilt, the trial court should not refuse to grant the directed verdict motion." State v. Phillips , 416 S.C. 184, 192, 785 S.E.2d 448, 452 (2016). "However, the trial court must submit the case to the jury if there is ‘any substantial evidence which reasonably t......
  • State v. Beaty
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 25 Abril 2018
    ...All remaining issues are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220, SCACR. State v. Bailey , 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989) ; State v. Phillips , 416 S.C. 184, 785 S.E.2d 448 (2016) ; State v. Sterling , 396 S.C. 599, 723 S.E.2d 176 (2012) ; State v. Scott , 414 S.C. 482, 779 S.E.2d 529 (2015) ; Sta......
  • State v. Harry
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 19 Julio 2017
    ...record to determine whether the trial judge erred in denying the appellant's motion for a directed verdict. State v. Phillips , 416 S.C. 184, 195–97, 785 S.E.2d 448, 453–54 (2016) (explaining the waiver rule adopted in Hepburn ).Harry was charged with and convicted of murder based on the ac......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 54 Judgment
    • United States
    • South Carolina Civil Procedure (SCBar)
    • Invalid date
    ...This is particularly so because the court of appeals is bound by Supreme Court precedents. S.C. Const. art. V, § 9; State v. Phillips, 416 S.C. 184, 785 S.E.2d 448 (2016) (it is incumbent upon the court of appeals to apply the Supreme Court's precedent).[62] Mitchell v. Mitchell, 266 S.C. 1......