State v. Simms, Appellate Case No. 2013–001219.
| Decision Date | 10 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 27528.,Appellate Case No. 2013–001219.,27528. |
| Citation | 774 S.E.2d 445,412 S.C. 590 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Curtis J. SIMMS, Appellant. |
Jonathan S. Gasser, Chief Appellate Defender, Robert Michael Dudek, Appellate Defender, Susan Barber Hackett, and Appellate Defender David Alexander, all of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General, Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Salley W. Elliott, and Solicitor Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for respondent.
Curtis Simms (Appellant) appeals his conviction for high and aggravated breach of the peace, and resulting sentence. We affirm.
This case arises out of the tragic death of a young man, Martin Gasque (the victim), outside of Williams–Brice Stadium following the University of South Carolina football game against the University of Alabama in October 2010. Both Appellant and the victim tailgated near the stadium during the football game, and both were intoxicated as they left the area. Appellant, wearing an Alabama jersey, left the tailgate with friends, riding as the front-seat passenger in a green truck driven by a friend, Dustin Lindsey. Lindsey attempted to exit the tailgate parking lot by turning right onto Shop Road.2 The victim—an avid Gamecock fan—was the front-seat passenger in a black truck driven by his friend Adam Paxton, and was boisterously engaging Gamecock fans through his open window as Paxton inched down Shop Road in the “bumper-to-bumper” traffic.
The two trucks and passengers crossed paths when the black truck blocked the green truck from exiting the parking lot. Lindsey blew his horn. In response, the victim threw up his hands, as if to indicate that he was sorry for blocking Lindsey's entry into the roadway. Appellant exited the green truck and approached the black truck's passenger side, where the victim was sitting. Appellant punched the victim once while he was seated in the truck, and then hit the victim four or five more times as he exited the black truck. The victim was knocked unconscious, and fell into the roadway parallel to the truck on the white line comprising the edge of the lane of traffic. After the victim hit the ground, Paxton began pulling his truck forward to the right in order to move the truck onto the shoulder of Shop Road and out of the roadway. As he did so, he unknowingly began to slowly roll over the victim between his legs, then over his groin, his abdomen, his chest, and finally, his head. Appellant yelled at Paxton to stop, and banged on the truck with his fists, but this only caused Paxton to accelerate.
The victim died at the scene after suffering a hinge fracture, an injury incompatible with life, which was caused by Paxton running over him.
Due to the fact that the death occurred in the roadway, police blocked both lanes of traffic for several hours. One eyewitness testified that the line of traffic was already “bumper-to-bumper,” and this incident “just added to it.” A responding Sheriff's deputy testified that a large crowd of people were present at the scene and it was “pretty chaotic.” Further, “pedestrians were everywhere,” and “[c]rowds of people were agitated with traffic problems” and were “just constantly ... berat[ing] the police.” Another Sheriff's deputy testified that due to the “gridlock,” “[it] took a while to get things moving.”
Appellant was charged with both aggravated breach of the peace and involuntary manslaughter. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the involuntary manslaughter charge, but found Appellant guilty of aggravated breach of the peace.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to ten years' imprisonment, suspended upon the service of five years' imprisonment and three years' probation, but later reduced Appellant's sentence to ten years' imprisonment suspended upon the service of three years' imprisonment, plus three years' probation.
Appellant subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which this Court denied. However, we subsequently certified this appeal from the court of appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.
At trial, Appellant moved for a directed verdict on the breach of the peace indictment because his conduct in punching the victim did not “rise to the level suggested by our legislature for [the breach of the peace] charge to go forward.” The circuit court denied the directed verdict based upon the number of punches thrown by Appellant, the public nature of the incident, and the number of people who witnessed the fight. Appellant renewed his directed verdict motion at the close of his case on the same basis as his previous motion, and the trial court again denied the motion. On appeal to this Court, Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his directed verdict because there is no evidence in the record to support the finding that there were aggravating circumstances. We find that the State presented evidence sufficient to withstand Appellant's directed verdict motion with respect to the breach of the peace charge.
A breach of the peace is a common law offense. State v. Randolph, 239 S.C. 79, 121 S.E.2d 349 (1961). Encompassing a broad range of conduct, South Carolina courts have analyzed a breach of the peace over the centuries as a crime defying strict definition:
The term “breach of the peace” is a generic one embracing a great variety of conduct destroying or menacing public order and tranquility. In general terms a breach of peace is a violation of public order, a disturbance of the public tranquility, by any act or conduct inciting to violence, which includes any violation of any law enacted to preserve peace and good order.
State v. Poinsett, 250 S.C. 293, 297, 157 S.E.2d 570, 571 (1967) (citation omitted); see also Randolph, 239 S.C. at 83, 121 S.E.2d at 350 (). As noted by the court of appeals in State v. Peer:
Throughout the various definitions appearing in the cases there runs the proposition that a breach of the peace may be generally defined as such a violation of the public order as amounts to a disturbance of the public tranquility, by act or conduct either directly having this effect, or by inciting or tending to incite such a disturbance of the public tranquility. Under this general definition, therefore, in laying the foundation for a prosecution for the offense of breach of the peace it is not necessary that the peace actually be broken; commission of an unlawful and unjustifiable act, tending with sufficient directness to breach the peace, is sufficient.
320 S.C. 546, 552, 466 S.E.2d 375, 379 (Ct.App.1996) (citing 12 Am. Jur. 2d Breach of Peace & Disorderly Conduct § 4 (1964) ). “Whether conduct constitutes a breach of the peace depends on the time, place, and nearness of other persons.” Id. (citing 3 S.C. Juris. Breach of Peace § 7 (1991) ). However, despite including “acts likely to produce violence in others, actual violence is not an element of breach of peace.” Id. (citations omitted); see also State v. Langston, 195 S.C. 190, 11 S.E.2d 1 (1940).
Normally, a breach of the peace is a misdemeanor punishable in magistrate's court by a fine “not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days, or both....” S.C.Code Ann. § 22–3–560 (Supp.2013). When, however, the breach of the peace is deemed to be of a high and aggravated nature, the case may be “waived up” to the Court of General Sessions:
Magistrates may cause to be arrested (a) all affrayers, rioters, disturbers and breakers of the peace, (b) all who go armed offensively, to the terror of the people, (c) such as utter menaces or threatening speeches and (d) otherwise dangerous and disorderly persons. Persons arrested for any of such offenses shall be examined by the magistrate before whom they are brought and may be tried before him. If found guilty they may be required to find sureties of the peace and be punished within the limits prescribed in § 22–3–560 or, when the offense is of a high and aggravated nature, they may be committed or bound over for trial before the court of general sessions.
S.C.Code Ann. § 22–5–150 (Supp.2013) (emphasis added); cf. id. § 22–5–110(A)(3) (Supp. 2013) ().
Thus, a simple breach of the peace is a common law offense defined in our precedents in broad terms. Where aggravating circumstances exist, however, the General Assembly has permitted a defendant to be prosecuted in circuit court, as happened here. See S.C.Code Ann. § 22–5–150. It makes no difference that the aggravators are not expressly defined by statute. Rather, the law only requires that a breach of the peace be “of a high and aggravated nature.” Thus, a wide variety of factual circumstances could render a simple breach of the peace triable in circuit court because of its “high and aggravated nature.”
Here Appellant was indicted for “Breach of Peace—High and Aggravated.”3 The indictment states:
That [Appellant] did in Richland County on or about October 9, 2010, knowingly, willfully and intentionally disturb public order and/or public tranquility through his conduct, accompanied by circumstances of aggravation, fighting in the roadway and/or disrupting traffic such acts constituting the offense of Breach of Peace in violation of the Common Law of South Carolina.
Considering the time, place, and nearness of others as required by Peer, we find that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Montgomery
... ... Kareem Martin (Martin) filed this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C ... § 1983 and the South ... breach of the peace is a common law offense.” State ... v. Simms, 774 S.E.2d 445, 447 (S.C. 2015). “The ... ...
-
Webb v. Lott
...cause to arrest Plaintiff for breach of peace, Plaintiff has failed to provide any case law in support. See, e.g., State v. Simms, 774 S.E.2d 445, 447 (S.C. 2015) (citations omitted) ("A breach of the peace is a common law offense. Encompassing a broad range of conduct, South Carolina court......
- In re Beck, Appellate Case No. 2014–001912.