State v. Smith, No. 25010.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation337 S.C. 27,522 S.E.2d 598
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Derrick SMITH, Appellant.
Decision Date08 November 1999
Docket NumberNo. 25010.

337 S.C. 27
522 S.E.2d 598

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Derrick SMITH, Appellant

No. 25010.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard June 22, 1999.

Decided November 8, 1999.


337 S.C. 28
Senior Assistant Appellate Defender Wanda H. Haile, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant

337 S.C. 29
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General G. Robert DeLoach, III, and Solicitor Warren B. Giese, all of Columbia, for respondent

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was convicted of murder and assault and battery with intent to kill (ABIK)1 and sentenced to life and ten years' imprisonment, respectively. He appeals.

FACTS

Shortly before midnight on October 14, 1996, appellant shot and killed his six-week-old daughter, Fuschia, while she was being held by his wife, the infant's mother, Tammy. The bullet entered Fuschia's chest, exited through her back, and lodged in Tammy's clavicle. Appellant claimed the shooting was an accident.

A neighbor testified, while at home with the television on, he heard Tammy say several times, "[a]ppellant, get away from me when I am holding the baby." Fifteen seconds later, the neighbor heard a gunshot, went outside, and saw a man running in the alley. The neighbor characterized Tammy's voice as loud and argumentative.

A paramedic testified when he arrived at the scene of the shooting, the infant was unresponsive.2 He testified Tammy stated "she was involved with an argument and that mother ---er shot her." She stated "I cannot he (sic) believe he got mad and shot me." Another paramedic testified Tammy stated she and appellant were arguing and he shot her.

An investigator who interviewed Tammy shortly after the shooting testified Tammy stated appellant had been drinking. They were arguing over a car. Appellant obtained his pistol, pointed it at her, and then fired a shot inside the home.

337 S.C. 30
Tammy picked up the baby and went outside. Appellant followed Tammy outside then shot her while she was holding Fuschia

The investigator asked Tammy the following questions:

Q. Why do you think [appellant] shot you?
A. He was mad and had been drinking.
Q. Did he tell you he was going to shoot you?
A. He said, "if I ever catch you with anybody I will blow both of your brains out, because I love you."

Although she gave a written statement to the police indicating she and her husband were arguing and the shooting was intentional, at trial Tammy testified appellant was unloading his pistol when the shooting occurred. Contrary to her written statement, Tammy denied appellant threatened to "blow [her] brains out," denied he struck her in the face, denied pleading with appellant not to touch her while she held Fuschia, and denied she left her home to telephone the police. She testified she did not remember giving a statement to the police.

Three hours after the shooting, Curtis Weathersbee gave the following statement:

On 10-15 (sic) -96 I was in [appellant's] house, watching a football, the football game. Earlier [Tammy and appellant] were having a verbal confrontation because she went to her cousin's house and stayed too long. He was explaining that she should not be gone from the baby that long because the baby was sick. While raving at her he was constantly threatening her that he would shoot her head off, shoot her in the face.
As he told her that he was approaching the bedroom to get a pistol. He stood in the kitchen, with the pistol beside him, just wobbling from left to right with an angry look on his face. That is when the pistol went off. After that he went and put the pistol back in the bedroom. He came back out and was pacing the floor constantly threatening her. Tammy grabbed her baby and said, `oh, Lord, let me get up and go.'
By the time she got at the car trying to leave, that is when he left out the door with the pistol. The door slammed
337 S.C. 31
shut. I heard Tammy holler. I was praying that it would not happen. But I heard a shot. I jumped, stating—I jumped up and as I was approaching the door, [appellant] ran back in the house stating, `I believe that I shot Tammy.'

Mr. Weathersbee testified his statement was involuntary; he stated he was threatened by an investigator. He testified he did not remember telling the investigator appellant had threatened to shoot Tammy's "head off" or in the face. He admitted appellant and Tammy had argued and appellant was "real upset" and "hollering."

Through a written statement, appellant indicated he was removing the pistol from his trouser pocket when it fired. Appellant did not testify at trial.

ISSUES

I. Did the trial judge err by allowing the solicitor to refer to appellant's July 1996 criminal domestic violence conviction?
II. Did the trial judge err by charging the jury on unlawful possession of a weapon?

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 practice notes
  • State v. Martucci, No. 4438.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 24 September 2008
    ...guilt on the homicide charge. The evidence was necessary to establish a material fact or element of the crime charged. See State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 522 S.E.2d 598 (1999) (defendant's prior criminal domestic violence conviction admissible to establish his intent to kill and the absence o......
  • State v. Humphries, No. 3380.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 6 August 2001
    ...must 346 S.C. 452 support a logical relevance between other bad act and crime for which defendant is accused); State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 522 S.E.2d 598 (1999)(other bad acts evidence must be logically relevant to particular purpose or purposes for which it is sought to be Evidence is rel......
  • State v. Gamble, No. 27307.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 October 2013
    ...absent an abuse of discretion.” [405 S.C. 416]State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) (citing State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999)). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law.” Id. (citing Clark v......
  • State v. Gamble, Appellate Case No. 2011-192246
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 28 August 2013
    ...by this Court absent an abuse of discretion." State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) (citing State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999)). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law." Id. (citing Clark v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
48 cases
  • State v. Martucci, No. 4438.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 24 September 2008
    ...guilt on the homicide charge. The evidence was necessary to establish a material fact or element of the crime charged. See State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 522 S.E.2d 598 (1999) (defendant's prior criminal domestic violence conviction admissible to establish his intent to kill and the absence o......
  • State v. Humphries, No. 3380.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 6 August 2001
    ...must 346 S.C. 452 support a logical relevance between other bad act and crime for which defendant is accused); State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 522 S.E.2d 598 (1999)(other bad acts evidence must be logically relevant to particular purpose or purposes for which it is sought to be Evidence is rel......
  • State v. Gamble, No. 27307.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 2 October 2013
    ...absent an abuse of discretion.” [405 S.C. 416]State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) (citing State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999)). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law.” Id. (citing Clark v......
  • State v. Gamble, Appellate Case No. 2011-192246
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 28 August 2013
    ...by this Court absent an abuse of discretion." State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d 464, 467 (2000) (citing State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 34, 522 S.E.2d 598, 601 (1999)). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law." Id. (citing Clark v......
  • 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