State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 23 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 24857.,24857. |
| Citation | 333 S.C. 159,508 S.E.2d 870 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. William David TAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Assistant Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General John P. Riordan, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Walter M. Bailey, Jr., of Summerville, for respondent.
Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. We affirm.
At the beginning of trial, appellant stipulated he killed his wife, Janet, by strangling her with a t-shirt; he denied the killing was murder. The homicide occurred on August 31, 1994.
The following evidence was presented. Appellant and Janet separated in June 1994. According to different witnesses, appellant threatened to kill his wife on several occasions after their separation. Specifically, appellant stated, referring to his wife: "if that bitch don't come home, I'm going to kill her;" "either you are going to have sex with me or I'll kill you;" "he should have killed her and [her daughter] a long time ago...;" and "if he had her right then, he'd ring her neck."
Appellant's neighbor saw a man at the Taylor's home after Janet returned to the marital home.1 In early August, the neighbor had a conversation with appellant. Appellant indicated he knew Janet was seeing this man and stated, "I'm not going to let anyone sleep in my bed; I'd kill her first." The neighbor replied, "I told [appellant] not to be another O.J. Simpson." According to appellant's brother, on the afternoon of August 31, appellant drove from Dorchester County to Orangeburg. Appellant told his brother he thought he had killed Janet. The brother reported the claim to the police. The Orangeburg police arrived and arrested appellant without incident.
One of the arresting officers testified appellant had cut his wrist with a box cutter in an apparent suicide attempt. Appellant inquired if his wife was dead and, if so, "then that was good; that he had wasted twenty-one years of his life." Two other officers testified appellant repeatedly asked "is the bitch dead?" and stated "I hope she's dead because she ruined [my] life."
Appellant's sister testified Janet began a relationship with Richard Pritchard in May 1994. The sister testified, despite their separation, appellant continued to give Janet money and, at times, the two "acted like newlyweds."
The sister testified appellant called her on August 31 and stated he thought he had killed Janet. The sister testified she thought appellant then stated he was "just kidding." Appellant's sister stated he "sounded kind of sad." The sister went to Janet's home; she gave the deputies permission to break a window to enter the home.
Dorchester Deputy Sheriff Limehouse testified Sergeant Moore broke a window pane, entered the home, and then unlocked the front door. Janet's body was found in a bedroom, under blankets, clothes, and a guitar case. Appellant stipulated he killed Janet in one part of the home and dragged her to another.
The deputy sheriff testified it appeared there had been a struggle in the home. A lamp was knocked over. A broken necklace and torn watchband were on the floor.
Richard Pritchard, Janet's paramour, testified on appellant's behalf. He stated he was engaged in an affair with Janet from May to August 1994. Appellant was aware of the relationship in May and had no animosity about Pritchard's relationship with Janet. Several weeks before Janet's death, appellant shook Pritchard's hand and stated he was glad Janet had met someone nice. Appellant testified Janet left him in May 1994. He stated Janet had told him Pritchard was a friend, but appellant suspected the relationship was more. He testified he did not want to believe his wife had a relationship with Pritchard; he wanted Janet back. Although they were separated, on occasion, Janet led appellant to believe there was a chance for their relationship.
Days before the homicide, appellant helped Janet with car repairs. On the day of the killing, appellant bought her a car battery and helped her pack her possessions. Her home was in foreclosure. She asked appellant for money to rent an apartment. Appellant stated he thought she was going to live with her parents.
Appellant testified:
I had been drinking a little bit ... I was sitting on the floor... [Janet] got mad with me, and I just kind of laughed at her a little bit. I rubbed her on the leg. I said, `what are you getting'—because Janet didn't normally get upset like that ... But she got up and started pacing back and forth, and she started telling me that Rick was her lover. And she told me that Leonard Bogard, she had had sex with him while she was still married to me ... [Janet] was very angry at me ... She said, `Bill, you're never going to change; you're sorry as hell,' and she said, I have no intentions of going back to you.' She plainly told me that she was only using me for my money ... At that time, I started to get up and she kicked me in the groin ... She went toward the television set on the end of the couch ... And somehow or another she came up to me. I don't know if she had an object in her hand. I have no idea what it was at the time, but I ended up with her shirt, her t-shirt, from the back of her trying to hold her off of me, from hitting me. She kept doing this (indicating). She had something in her hand—I don't know what it was—and she was kicking me also. And the next thing I know she stopped doing everything, and she was down on the floor, and she was dead.
(emphasis added).
Appellant testified he tried to resuscitate Janet. He then dragged her body to the back bedroom. He stated he did not mean to hurt Janet and denied ever threatening to kill her. Appellant testified he later discovered Janet had been holding a box cutter. The box cutter had blood on it. Appellant took the box cutter.
Appellant testified when Janet was coming towards him, he reached behind her, grabbed her t-shirt at the neck, and squeezed the shirt tightly. He did not know how long he held onto the shirt. Appellant's sisters testified Janet had asthma.
Appellant explained Janet must have cut her left hand while transferring the box cutter between her hands. Appellant denied slashing Janet's hand with the box cutter. He further denied his wife smeared blood on the front door while attempting to flee.
The pathologist testified the decedent died from asphyxia due to ligature strangulation. She stated "it takes a good deal of pressure to asphyxiate somebody by means of a t-shirt [pulled across the front of the neck] ... it takes a good deal of force to do that." The pathologist testified it would take a "number of minutes" to asphyxiate someone with a t-shirt.2 She testified there were no indications the decedent had asthma.
The decedent had several scrapes on her back, bruises on the back of her left arm, bruises on the inside of her thighs, a bruise on her scalp, and bruises on her lower legs. The pathologist stated the bruises probably occurred just before death.
The decedent had a two inch laceration on her left palm which the pathologist stated could have been inflicted with a knife. The pathologist described this wound as "defensive." Blood was also found on the decedent's right hand. The pathologist agreed with the defense that the location of the blood was consistent with the decedent holding something in that hand.
The forensic serologist testified both the decedent and appellant had the same blood type. She was unable to determine the decedent's blood sub-type, but determined appellant's sub-type. Human blood was found on the decedent's right hand and on scrapings from the victim's fingernails, but no other identifiable characteristics were available. Blood on the decedent's left hand and t-shirt was consistent with the decedent's blood but inconsistent with appellant's blood. The blood stains on appellant's shorts and shirt were consistent with his blood type (and the decedent's). Human blood was identified on the box cutter taken from appellant, on a box from the decedent's home, and on a swab taken from the front door of the decedent's home, but no further identifying information was available on these items.
Appellant maintains the essential jury issue was whether the homicide was murder or voluntary manslaughter.3
The State presented appellant's brother as a witness. During cross-examination, the following colloquy was exchanged:
During a bench conference, appellant indicated he was trying to establish Janet was the aggressor. He proffered the following testimony:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lyles
...judge's decision to admit or exclude the evidence is reviewed on appeal under an abuse of discretion standard."); State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 172, 508 S.E.2d 870, 876 (1998) ("[I]n order for this Court to reverse a case based on the erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence, prejudice......
- State v. Cherry
- State v. Cherry
-
State v. Douglas, 4075.
...is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case. In re Harvey, 355 S.C. 53, 584 S.E.2d 893 (2003); State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 508 S.E.2d 870 (1998); State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 575 S.E.2d 77 (Ct.App.2003). No definite rule of law governs this finding. State v. Gilli......