State v. Commander
396 S.C. 254
| S.C. | 2011Background
- Victim Gervonya Goodwin was found mummified and partially decomposed in her home; Petitioner Christopher Commander had a romantic relationship with Victim and had access to her belongings.
- Petitioner stole Victim’s purse, phone, and car; used Victim’s phone to text Victim’s family portraying her as alive.
- Police recovered Victim’s personal items from Petitioner's hotel room and vehicle; Victim’s pregnancy and non-viable fetus were discovered.
- Dr. Nichols, State pathologist, opined death by asphyxiation and homicide based on autopsy and circumstantial history; defense challenged as Rule 702 misuse.
- Presley, jailhouse lawyer, testified Petitioner's statements to him included a possible accidental killing theory; defense sought accident/self-defense instructions.
- Trial court admitted pathology testimony and refused to instruct on accident; jury convicted Petitioner of murder.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony on manner of death | Commander argues Nichols’s ‘homicide’ opinion invades jury issue. | State contends expert testimony aids fact-finding under Rule 702. | Rule 702 admissible if not about defendant’s state of mind; error harmless. |
| Whether the trial court should have instructed on accident | Commander seeks accident instruction based on Presley testimony. | State argues no accident evidence supports instruction. | No accident evidence supported an instruction; affirmed denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bridges, 278 S.C. 447, 298 S.E.2d 212 (1982) (criminal trial conduct review limited to abuse of discretion)
- State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 625 S.E.2d 216 (2006) (harmless error analysis factors applied)
- State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 632 S.E.2d 845 (2006) (evidence-admission standard; harmless-error review)
- State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 563 S.E.2d 315 (2002) (harmless error factors for evidentiary ruling)
- Green v. State, 351 S.C. 184, 569 S.E.2d 318 (2002) (expert testimony on legal conclusions exclusion)
