State v. Kelley

460 S.E.2d 368, 319 S.C. 173, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 122
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedJuly 24, 1995
Docket24278
StatusPublished
Cited by59 cases

This text of 460 S.E.2d 368 (State v. Kelley) 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. Kelley, 460 S.E.2d 368, 319 S.C. 173, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 122 (S.C. 1995).

Opinion

Toal, Justice:

Donald Kelley was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. We affirm.

FACTS

On August 2, 1992, Barbara Myers found her niece, Christine Peterson, dead in the living room of Myers’ home. At *176 least one hundred and sixteen blows covered Peterson’s body, including bruises, abrasions, and lacerations. Donald Kelley, Peterson’s boyfriend, was the only person in the home when Myers found her niece.

Kelly was indicted and tried for murder. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life. This appeal follows.

LAW/ANALYSIS

1. Batson

Kelly first claims the Solicitor’s explanation for striking two black potential jurors, Joe Joyce and Marion Clavon, was pretextual. We disagree.

The State exercised three of its peremptory challenges to strike three black jurors and one of its peremptory challenges to strike one white juror. The trial judge conducted a Batson hearing upon defense counsel’s motion. The Solicitor explained she struck Joe Joyce and Marion Clavon because defense counsel previously had represented these jurors. The Solicitor noted she did not strike a white male whom defense counsel had represented. The Solicitor explained when this juror was called she only had one strike left. At that time, there were other potential jurors who had prior records whom she wanted to save her last strike for. She didn’t “want to use any last strike on somebody just because of representation of Mr. Jennings.” Additionally, the Solicitor noted she struck a white female defense counsel had represented.

In a Batson 1 hearing, the solicitor must present a racially neutral explanation for the challenges. State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 395 S.E. (2d) 167 (1990). Whether a proffered reason is racially neutral is to be determined by examining the totality of the facts and circumstances in the record surrounding the strike, including the credibility and demeanor of the individual called upon to explain her strike. Riddle v. State, 314 S.C. 1, 443 S.E. (2d) 557 (citations omitted), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 518, 130 L.Ed. (2d) 424 (1994). The defendant has the burden to prove the solicitor’s allegedly neutral reasons are pretext. Johnson, supra. The defendant can demonstrate the solicitor created a *177 pretext for purposeful discrimination by applying her allegedly racially neutral standard in a discriminatory manner. State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E. (2d) 891 (1989).

Here, the Solicitor stated she struck two black jurors because defense counsel had represented these jurors. The Solicitor also explained that she struck one white juror for the same reason. Although the Solicitor did not strike an additional white juror whom defense counsel had represented, she provided a racially neutral reason that at the time this juror was called she was saving her last strike to use on other potential jurors who had a criminal record. Kelly has not shown the Solicitor’s race-neutral explanation for striking Joe Joyce and Marion Clavon was a pretext. Johnson, supra. Accordingly, under the facts and circumstances in the record, we affirm the trial judge’s finding that Batson was not violated.

2. Admission of video, pictures and visual aids

Kelly next argues the trial judge erred in allowing into evidence photographs depicting the bloodstains on the victim and the surrounding area, a video that panned the crime scene, and charts the pathologists used in describing numerous wounds to the victim’s body. We disagree.

It is well settled that evidence should be excluded when its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect. State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 410 S.E. (2d) 146 (1991). A trial judge has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his rulings will not be disturbed absent a showing of probable prejudice. State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E. (2d) 180 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct. 1592, 94 L.Ed. (2d) 78.1 (1987). The determination of the relevancy and materiality of a photograph is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 349 S.E. (2d) 339 (1986).

The pathologist’s charts were hand-drawn outlines of the victim’s face and body showing numerous wounds in either blue ink or red ink. The pathologist testified that the cause of death was a closed head injury due to massive beating with additional massive beating as a contributive factor. The charts corroborated the pathologist’s testimony. See Todd, supra (no abuse of discretion if the offered photograph serves to corroborate testimony).

*178 The photographs and video show the crime scene. Specifically, two photographs are of the victim’s nude body lyng on the living room floor with her face and body visibly swollen from the beating. Additionally, the photographs show blood smeared on the walls and floor. The video shows the entire crime scene. These photographs and video were relevant to establish the crime scene. State v. Campbell, 259 S.C. 339, 191 S.E. (2d) 770 (1972).

Additionally, Kelley’s main defense was that he was drunk at the time of the killing and, therefore, should only be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. These charts, photographs, and video also were relevant to establish malice.

Kelly argues these items were unfairly prejudicial and, therefore, should have been excluded. To constitute unfair prejudice, the photographs must create a “tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one.” Alexander at 377, 401 S.E. (2d) at 149. The charts, photographs, and video here depicted the excess nature of the killing. The relevance of these items and their probative value on the issue of malice was great enough to negate the risk of the jury’s basing its decision on an improper passion. See State v. Franklin, — S.C. —, 456 S.E. (2d) 357 (1995). We affirm.

2. Res gestae

At trial, Wilson Bradley, one of the State’s witnesses, testified that the night before the victim died, the victim told the witness she needed help because Kelley had kicked her in the chest. Kelley objected on the basis of hearsay. The trial judge allowed the testimony under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.

To qualify as part of the res gestae exception to hearsay, a statement must be substantially contemporaneous with the litigated transaction and be the spontaneous utterance of the mind while under the active immediate influence of the event. State v. Cox, 274 S.C. 624, 266 S.E. (2d) 784 (1980).

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

Related

State v. Bradley W. Walker
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2026
State v. Johnathan O. Batchelor
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2024
State v. David Viron Lewis Garrett
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2023
State v. Tillman
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2021
State v. Green
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2020
State v. Bell
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2020
State v. Bonilla
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2019
State v. Hardin
819 S.E.2d 177 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2018)
State v. Hawes
813 S.E.2d 513 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2018)
State v. Young
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2017
State v. May
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2017
State v. Johnson
776 S.E.2d 367 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2015)
State v. Broadnax
779 S.E.2d 789 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2015)
State v. Simms
Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2015
State v. Gray
759 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2014)
State v. Brockmeyer
751 S.E.2d 645 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 2013)
State v. Scott
749 S.E.2d 160 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2013)
State v. Williams
747 S.E.2d 194 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2013)
State v. Dial
746 S.E.2d 495 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2013)
State v. Gaskins
Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 2013

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
460 S.E.2d 368, 319 S.C. 173, 1995 S.C. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kelley-sc-1995.