State v. Reese
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | ANDERSON, J. |
| Citation | State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (S.C. App. 2004) |
| Decision Date | 03 May 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 3790.,3790. |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Willie Earl REESE, Jr., Appellant. |
Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
Appellant Willie Earl Reese, Jr. was indicted and charged with the murder of his wife Teresa. Following a jury trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison. He now appeals, asserting the trial court erred in the admission of hearsay testimony, the admission of photographs of the victim's body and autopsy, denying certain requested jury charges, and failing to grant a mistrial based on the Solicitor's closing arguments. We reverse and remand.
Following her marriage to Reese in January 1999, Teresa Joyner moved out of the marital house and returned to her parents' home on two occasions, the first in January 2001 and again in April of the same year. Late in the evening during her second stay away from the marital home, as Teresa stood on the sidewalk in front of her parents' house, Reese shot Teresa in the head, killing her.
During the evening leading up to the fatal shooting, Teresa had been playing softball with her neighbor and cousin, Edith McKenzie. After the game, the two went to a club. Throughout the evening, while Teresa was with Edith, Teresa's mother received repeated telephone calls from Reese inquiring about Teresa's whereabouts and asking that she call him when she returned home. Each time he called, Teresa's mother assured Reese that she would tell her daughter he had called.
Edith testified that after leaving the club with Teresa around 1:30 a.m., she noticed Reese's car parked at a stop sign as she pulled into Sandstone Lane. Pulling alongside his car, Teresa spoke briefly with Reese, after which he turned his car around and followed Teresa to her parents' house. Standing in front of her parents' house, Teresa assured Edith that everything was okay, gave her a hug, and told her that she would see her tomorrow. Edith then departed, leaving Teresa and Reese standing on the sidewalk facing each other.
Edith drove to her own home two houses away, and once inside, called to check on Teresa. Teresa's mother answered the phone, and Edith asked if Teresa had come inside. According to Edith's testimony, when Teresa's mother went outside to check, she began screaming. Edith then drove back to where she had left Teresa and found her body on the sidewalk.
The following day, using his father as an intermediary, Reese contacted the police and informed them he wanted to turn himself in. Deputy Thomas Reese, the officer who took Reese into custody, testified that Reese was upset, at times crying, and cooperative throughout the process. At the sheriff's office, Reese gave the following voluntary written statement:
At trial, three witnesses testified that Teresa had moved out because of marital difficulties she was having with Reese. On each occasion, counsel for Reese objected that the portion of the testimony relating to why she moved out was hearsay because they "could only know that through hearsay." The objections were overruled. Over Reese's objection, four of the State's witnesses testified that during the week prior to her shooting, Teresa had told them that she was afraid for her life. Over objection, the State admitted into evidence Exhibit 13, a photograph of Teresa's body at the scene, and Exhibit 19, an autopsy photo.
At the close of the State's evidence, counsel for Reese requested that the jury be instructed on the law of involuntary manslaughter and accident. The State objected, arguing that the felony of pointing and presenting a firearm was involved, thereby leaving Reese ineligible for jury instructions on involuntary manslaughter and accident. Whether or not the felony was implicated, counsel for Reese responded, the evidence did not necessarily establish the elements of the crime and "the jury could conclude that he was not pointing or presenting." The trial court sustained the State's objection, ruling that Reese was not entitled to involuntary manslaughter and accident charges. At the beginning of his closing argument, the Solicitor noted the presence of counsel for Reese and explained his role as an advocate. He then asked the jury, The Solicitor reiterated the question, The Solicitor argued:
After you have seen all of the evidence — you notice I didn't answer the question before I went over the evidence with you. I have now gone over all of the evidence with you. And this is argument. And you have seen all of the evidence of malice that the State submits to you we have proven. So now I ask you, now that all the evidence is in upon my argument, who speaks for Teresa Reese? You do, Madam Forelady and Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury.
The Solicitor then concluded,
Counsel for Reese twice objected to the Solicitor's closing argument and moved for a mistrial. The trial judge denied Reese's motion, explaining, When counsel for Reese requested a curative instruction, the trial judge responded,
The following colloquy occurred during the Solicitor's closing argument:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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
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
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
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
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
Start Your Free Trial
-
State v. Staten
...a trial judges refusal to give a requested jury charge must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant. State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct.App.2004). "Failure to give requested jury instructions is not prejudicial error where the instructions given afford the proper te......
-
State v. Staten
... ... definition and adequately covers the law. Id. at ... 318, 577 S.E.2d at 464. To warrant reversal, a trial ... judge's refusal to give a requested jury charge must be ... both erroneous and prejudicial to the defendant. State v ... Reese , 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct. App. 2004) ... Failure to give requested jury instructions is not ... prejudicial error where the instructions given afford the ... proper test for determining the issues.” State v ... Burkhart , 350 S.C. 252, 263, 565 S.E.2d 298, 304 ... ...
-
Moulton v. Cartledge
...of another with malice, while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others." State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct. App. 2004) (citing State v. Tyler, 348 S.C. 526, 529, 560 S.E.2d 888, 889 (2002); State v. Chatman, 336 S.C. 149, 152, 519 S.E.2d 1......
-
State v. Mitchell
...of another without malice, while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others." State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct.App.2004) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Tyler, 348 S.C. 526, 529, 560 S.E.2d 888, 889 (2002); State v. Chatman, 336 S.C. 149,......
-
§ 2-8 Involuntary Manslaughter
...with a reckless disregard for the safety of others."); State v. Mitchell, 362 S.C. 289, 608 S.E.2d 140 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct. App. 2004), cert. granted (Oct. 6, 2005) (finding that evidence warranted giving requested charge on involuntary manslaug......
-
Chapter 1 Homicide
...as reckless disregard of safety of others." 23 S.C. Jur. Homicide § 32; State v. Smith, 446 S.E.2d 411 (S.C. 1994); and State v Reese, 597 S.E.2d 169 (S.C. Ct. App. 1994). "With regard to the crime of involuntary manslaughter, criminal negligence is defined as the reckless disregard of the ......
-
§ 2-8 Involuntary Manslaughter
...with a reckless disregard for the safety of others."); State v. Mitchell, 362 S.C. 289, 608 S.E.2d 140 (Ct. App. 2005); State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct. App. 2004), cert. granted (Oct. 6, 2005) (finding that evidence warranted giving requested charge on involuntary manslaug......
-
Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel
...position of the victim, is improper and warrants reversal when the trial judge refused to give a curative instruction. See State v. Reese, 359 S.C. 260, 597 S.E.2d 169 (Ct. App. 2004). Improper trial tactics can also occur on the defense side. One tactic, called "Plan B" in the television s......