State v. Davis

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Davis

298 S.E.2d 778, 278 S.C. 544, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 212

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedJanuary 3, 1983

Docket21839

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 298 S.E.2d 778 (State v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Davis, 298 S.E.2d 778, 278 S.C. 544, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 212 (S.C. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Appellant was indicted for murder and appeals from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. His sentence was twenty-four years’ imprisonment. He appeals, contending that his conviction should be reversed because there was no evidence to support a jury instruction on, and a conviction of, voluntary manslaughter. We affirm.

Over appellant’s timely objection, the trial judge instructed voluntary manslaughter on the ground that appellant’s intoxication could have eliminated the element of malice from the killing. The instruction was given upon an erroneous ground. Voluntary intoxication does not impair a person’s ability to act with malice aforethought so as to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. State v. Crocker, 272 S. C. 344, 251 S. E. (2d) 764 (1979). However, the fact that the trial judge gave the wrong ground for his decision does not preclude affirmance upon a proper ground sustained by the record. State v. Goodstein, S. C. 292 S. E. (2d) 791 (1982); Supreme Court Rule 4, section 8.

Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon a sufficient legal provocation. State v. Linder, 276 S. C. 304, 278 *546 S. E. (2d) 335 (1981). It is proper to refuse to instruct voluntary manslaughter in a murder case only when there appears no evidence whatsoever tending to show manslaughter. State v. Kahan, 268 S. C. 240, 233 S. E. (2d) 293 (1977). Here, a witness testified that appellant and the victim had been “fighting.” From this circumstance of “provocation” and “heat of passion,” guilt of voluntary manslaughter could be fairly and logically deduced and was thus a proper matter for jury determination. Kahan; State v. Pauling, 264 S. C. 275, 214 S. E. (2d) 326 (1975). In like manner, where there is evidence tending to establish guilt on the charge, neither a refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal nor a refusal to grant a new trial is error. Pauling. The conviction is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Appellant was indicted for murder and appeals from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. His sentence was twenty-four years’ imprisonment. He appeals, contending that his conviction should be reversed because there was no evidence to support a jury instruction on, and a conviction of, voluntary manslaughter. We affirm.

Over appellant’s timely objection, the trial judge instructed voluntary manslaughter on the ground that appellant’s intoxication could have eliminated the element of malice from the killing. The instruction was given upon an erroneous ground. Voluntary intoxication does not impair a person’s ability to act with malice aforethought so as to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. State v. Crocker, 272 S. C. 344, 251 S. E. (2d) 764 (1979). However, the fact that the trial judge gave the wrong ground for his decision does not preclude affirmance upon a proper ground sustained by the record. State v. Goodstein, S. C. 292 S. E. (2d) 791 (1982); Supreme Court Rule 4, section 8.

Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon a sufficient legal provocation. State v. Linder, 276 S. C. 304, 278 *546 S. E. (2d) 335 (1981). It is proper to refuse to instruct voluntary manslaughter in a murder case only when there appears no evidence whatsoever tending to show manslaughter. State v. Kahan, 268 S. C. 240, 233 S. E. (2d) 293 (1977). Here, a witness testified that appellant and the victim had been “fighting.” From this circumstance of “provocation” and “heat of passion,” guilt of voluntary manslaughter could be fairly and logically deduced and was thus a proper matter for jury determination. Kahan; State v. Pauling, 264 S. C. 275, 214 S. E. (2d) 326 (1975). In like manner, where there is evidence tending to establish guilt on the charge, neither a refusal to direct a verdict of acquittal nor a refusal to grant a new trial is error. Pauling. The conviction is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 S.E.2d 778, 278 S.C. 544, 1983 S.C. LEXIS 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-sc-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack