State v. King, 412 S.C. 403

In the early morning of Nov. 26, 2010, Yellow Cab driver Dario Brown picked up a man (later identified as Rakeem King) at 1808 Carlton St.; an armed robbery occurred in the cab and Brown was shot in the arm.
Brown testified the robber shot him in the cab and then pursued and fired additional shots as Brown fled; Brown estimated "maybe six or seven" shots but was unsure.
Police found one .25 auto shell casing in the cab and no other casings despite a two-hour search; Officer Butler canvassed neighbors after Brown was hospitalized.
Officer Butler testified (over defense objection) she "learned there was more than one shot" — approximately three or four — based on neighbors’ statements; defense objected as hearsay.
Brown later identified King from a photographic lineup that included King; King was convicted of attempted murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a violent crime.
On appeal King challenged (1) the jury instruction that attempted murder does not require specific intent to kill, and (2) admission of Officer Butler’s hearsay testimony about the number of shots; the court addressed harmless-error as to all convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether attempted murder requires specific intent to kill	King: statute’s phrase "with intent to kill" and prior case law require specific intent to kill for attempted murder	State: Legislature intended to codify ABWIK and did not require specific intent to kill	Court: Reversed — specific intent to kill is an element; trial court erred in charging otherwise
Whether Officer Butler’s testimony that there were multiple shots was admissible	King: Testimony conveyed neighbors’ out-of-court statements and was hearsay when offered to prove number of shots	State: Testimony reflected officer’s investigative conclusions and not hearsay	Court: Erroneous admission of the testimony was hearsay and should have been excluded
Whether the errors were harmless as to attempted murder	King: Errors were prejudicial because multiple shots (outside the cab) supported intent to kill	State: Errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Not harmless for attempted murder; errors likely affected the verdict — remand for new trial
Whether the errors were harmless as to armed robbery and firearm possession	King: argued general error impacted convictions	State: Evidence of robbery and single shot in cab established those convictions independent of errors	Court: Harmless as to armed robbery and firearm possession — convictions affirmed

Guinyard v. State, 260 S.C. 220 (court explains statutory interpretation of elements and intent)
Elwell v. State, 403 S.C. 606 (statutory interpretation principles; plain language controls)
Sutton v. State, 340 S.C. 393 (attempt crimes require specific intent; attempted murder would require specific intent to kill)
Kromah v. State, 401 S.C. 340 (officer testimony about investigative process did not necessarily repeat child’s out-of-court statements)
Weaver v. State, 361 S.C. 73 (officer testimony explaining investigative choices may not be hearsay when not repeating content)
Tapp v. State, 398 S.C. 376 (harmless error framework for trial errors and jury instructions)
Belcher v. State, 385 S.C. 597 (permissive-inference jury charge on deadly weapon use and limits where mitigating evidence exists)
Brown v. State, 317 S.C. 55 (officers’ out-of-court statements admissible to explain investigatory steps, not for their truth)
Robinson v. State, 410 S.C. 519 (Fourth Amendment privacy expectations and cell‑phone data)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (no legitimate expectation of privacy in numbers dialed to third-party telephone company)