State v. Washington

Citation424 S.C. 374,818 S.E.2d 459
Decision Date08 August 2018
Docket NumberOpinion No. 5586,Appellate Case No. 2015-002668
Parties The STATE, Respondent, v. Sha'quille WASHINGTON, Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeals of South Carolina

Katherine Carruth Goode, of Winnsboro, and Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

HUFF, J.:

Sha'quille Washington appeals his conviction and sentence for voluntary manslaughter. He raises numerous arguments concerning the admission or exclusion of evidence and the charging of the jury. We affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2013, twenty year-old Herman Manigault (Victim) died after being shot in a parking lot at a club located in a secluded area of Berkeley County known as "A Place in the Woods" (the Club). Victim's cousin, Larry Jenkins, who was with Victim at the Club, described the events of that night. Jenkins testified he and Victim arrived at the Club between 11:00 and 11:30 p.m. At some point, Victim and Jenkins picked up Victim's girlfriend, Arianna Coakley, along with Christina "Taj" Lockwood, and brought them to the Club. Jenkins first saw Washington at the Club when Washington bumped into Jenkins, and Washington, thereafter, began to "stare[ ] us down for a little bit." Jenkins felt a "bad vibe or [that] something wasn't right" from this behavior. Near the end of the night, Jenkins and Victim went outside. At the entrance of the Club, Victim took off his shirt, at which point Victim was "[hit] from behind." Jenkins acknowledged that removal of a shirt suggested there was going to be a fight. Jenkins indicated Victim was struck by more than one person and Jenkins "got into it" with a second individual, because he was not going to let his cousin get jumped. The fight started as a "two-on-one" situation and evolved into "two-on-two" once Jenkins joined the row. Jenkins was wrestling on the ground with the second person, and toward the end of the altercation, Jenkins heard a couple of shots. Jenkins first checked himself to make sure he did not have any stab or bullet wounds

. He then observed Victim on the ground and saw Washington shooting toward the ground. Jenkins stated at least one of these shots missed, because he saw the "ground spark up." He clarified he heard one or two shots and then observed Washington shoot at least three more times toward the ground while Victim was on the ground. Jenkins explained that Washington had the gun concealed in his hand, he was shooting like he was not really paying attention, and he was shooting from high and shooting down as he was walking away from Victim. Jenkins could not tell whether the person he fought had a weapon. After the shooting, Jenkins ran to Victim and observed Victim had been shot in the back. By then, Washington was gone. The last time Jenkins saw Washington, it looked like he was headed toward a car. Jenkins did not see where the individual he had been fighting went. Jenkins noticed, aside from being shot in the back, Victim's eye was bruised

where he had been hit, and he was bleeding from his face. Jenkins identified Washington in a photo line-up. He testified he was "a hundred percent sure" Washington was the person who shot Victim.1

Coakley, who was dating Victim, testified she went to the Club with Victim, Jenkins, and Lockwood on the night in question. While there, she saw Washington, who she had known for about eight years. Washington was at the Club with his uncle, Larry Kinloch. The week before this incident, Kinloch had approached Coakley asking for her number and hitting on her. Victim kept coming up to Coakley while at the Club, telling her "[Washington] keep looking at me," and Coakley advised Victim not to pay any attention to Washington. Around the third time that Victim approached Coakley and noted the situation with Washington, Victim stated to her that he was "going to snap in a moment."

When Victim went outside, Coakley observed Washington and Kinloch immediately trail behind Victim and Jenkins, so Coakley followed them. While still inside the Club, Coakley picked up a glass beer bottle. Once outside, Coakley could not hear what Washington said to Victim, but she heard Victim say "what's up," at which point Washington started hitting Victim with his left hand. Washington hit Victim on the side of his face, and as Victim started sliding down to get away, Washington continued to hit him. Coakley saw Washington hit Victim twice; once in his eye and the other in the back of his head as Victim was spinning around to get away. Victim was on the ground toward the back of a van. Coakley saw Washington initiate the fight, throwing the first punch at Victim. She observed Kinloch hit Jenkins right after Washington hit Victim. The fight moved to the front of the van. Washington turned around and put a gun in Coakley's face when he saw Coakley was about to hit him with the beer bottle, and he said, "I ain't playing, I ain't playing." Coakley, who had been standing on a stoop, dropped the bottle, put up her hands, and slowly backed up to the door. After Washington pointed the gun in Coakley's face, he jumped off the stoop and ran around the right side of the van, which obstructed Coakley's view. Before Coakley could get to the ground to see what was happening, she heard four gunshots. After the shooting stopped, Coakley went around the road to find Victim. Washington and Kinloch were not around the van by the time she got there, apparently having run from the vicinity. Victim did not have a gun, and she did not see anyone else with a gun that night. Coakley acknowledged she could not see the shooting because the van was in her way, and she did not see Washington shoot Victim. There were about four or five people in the vicinity when she heard the shots. Coakley gave police a statement, identifying Washington as the shooter. She also picked Washington out in a photo line-up because he was the person who pointed a gun in her face.

Darius Alls, a cook at the Club that night, testified Victim told him someone was bothering him and he thought his life was in danger. Alls suggested Victim stay at the bar until it closed and they would make sure he got to his car. Victim did not tell Alls who was bothering him.

The State also presented the testimony of Kinloch, who acknowledged being at the Club that night and seeing his nephew—Washington—there a couple of times and talking to him. When asked what he remembered about the shooting, Kinloch stated he did not know there was a commotion going on, and he was just outside smoking a cigarette. Kinloch testified he was standing on the stoop with a bunch of people, he knew nothing about a fight, and he did not see anybody with a gun. While smoking his cigarette, he heard three gunshots. The solicitor then inquired whether Kinloch talked on the phone to his brother—Patrick—on August 27, 2013, while Patrick was locked up in the detention center. Kinloch initially denied talking to him, then admitted talking to Patrick, but denied discussing this incident. Kinloch further denied ever telling anyone he drove Washington away from the scene or telling Patrick he saw Washington with a gun. The solicitor then confronted Kinloch with a recorded jail phone call—ostensibly between Kinloch and Patrick occurring two days after the shooting—which was played for the jury. The solicitor questioned Kinloch regarding the following language used in the call: "I fighting with this fuck—big fucking light-skinned dude, man, tussling with this mother fucker. He got me on the car. I got [Victim] on the car. Me and him going back and forth. Dow, dow, dow." Kinloch agreed the "dow, dow, dow" represented the three shots he either saw or heard. The solicitor asked Kinloch if he knew at least two shots hit Victim, and Kinloch stated he was not sure. The solicitor then asked if it was just coincidence Victim suffered two gunshots, noting the following that Kinloch said in the recorded call: "... that n-word shoot three damn times, man, and they been like—yeah. Head up, boy. I ain't know all that. But I know he had at least two of the three. He hit at least two of the three." Kinloch replied that he was not sure. The solicitor also asked Kinloch whether the word "strap" in the recorded phrase "he keep his strap" referred to a gun. Kinloch denied it was a reference to a gun and, when asked what it meant, stated he did not know.

On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned whether Kinloch's phone conversation with Patrick was really a self-serving means to protect himself by clearing himself and "put[ting] it squarely on the shoulders of [his] nephew," knowing that phone conversations in the detention center were recorded. He also asked Kinloch whether the jailhouse phone conversation's reference to Washington being "already strapped" and Kinloch responding "you know how we do," suggested that Kinloch had "strapped [himself] with a firearm" such that both Washington and Kinloch were "strapped." Kinloch denied this, claiming it was "[j]ust a little figure of speech." Kinloch testified he was not sure when Washington arrived at the club, and he denied the two of them went outside or that he retrieved a .357 Magnum weapon from the car. Defense counsel confronted Kinloch with a part of the conversation in which Kinloch relayed to Patrick, who was in jail on a murder charge, that someone must remain on the outside and that they both could not be in prison for murder. Kinloch agreed he said that, but stated it happened so long ago that he did not remember the phone call. When asked if he shared with an individual named Quinton Grant that he "did the shooting," Kinloch denied doing so. He likewise denied telling Darlene Washington that he "did the shooting." He further denied saying he had a .357 Magnum in his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Moorer
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 7, 2023
    ... ... "The purpose of the exclusion ... rule is ... to prevent the possibility of one witness ... shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses ... at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be ... disciplined by the court." State v. Washington , ... 424 S.C. 374, 409, 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), ... aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part on ... other grounds , 431 S.C. 394, 848 S.E.2d 779 (2020) ...          A ... proffer allows us to evaluate to what extent the exclusion of ... ...
  • State v. Moorer
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 7, 2023
    ... ... "The purpose of the exclusion ... rule is ... to prevent the possibility of one witness ... shaping his testimony to match that given by other witnesses ... at the trial; and if a witness violates the order he may be ... disciplined by the court." State v. Washington , ... 424 S.C. 374, 409, 818 S.E.2d 459, 477 (Ct. App. 2018), ... aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part on ... other grounds , 431 S.C. 394, 848 S.E.2d 779 (2020) ...          A ... proffer allows us to evaluate to what extent the exclusion of ... ...
  • State v. Washington
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 2, 2020
    ...convicted of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The court of appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction. State v. Washington , 424 S.C. 374, 818 S.E.2d 459 (Ct. App. 2018). We granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision. ......
  • State v. Alexander
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • August 22, 2018

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