State v. King, 422 S.C. 47

Background

In Nov. 2010 a Charleston cab driver (Brown) was robbed and shot; he identified Raheem King from a photographic lineup after phone records tied the cab-call number to a subscriber linked to King. King was charged with attempted murder, armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during a violent crime.
At trial Brown testified King shot him once in the cab and then fired additional rounds while Brown fled; police testimony from an officer relayed neighborhood reports that multiple shots were fired.
While incarcerated King made many calls to the number used to call the cab company; the State played a 15-minute jail-call recording at trial (over defense objections) to help prove connection to the phone number.
The jury convicted King of attempted murder, armed robbery, and the weapons offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed the robbery and weapons convictions but reversed the attempted-murder conviction, finding (inter alia): the trial judge misinstructed the jury on the mens rea for attempted murder, erred by admitting hearsay investigative testimony, but correctly allowed a permissive inference of malice from weapon use and the jail-call recording.
The South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to review those issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Mens rea required for statutory attempted murder (S.C. Code §16-3-29)	§16-3-29 does not require specific intent to kill; it codified ABWIK and a general intent suffices; any jury-charge error was harmless.	Attempted murder requires only general intent (malice aforethought) and the jury instruction that specific intent is not required was correct.	The Court held attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill; the trial judge erred in instructing it was a general-intent crime and the error was not harmless as to the attempted-murder conviction.
Admissibility of officer testimony about neighborhood reports (investigative hearsay)	Officer’s testimony described investigative findings and was admissible to explain officer conduct; any error was harmless.	The officer’s recounting of out-of-court statements was impermissible hearsay that prejudiced the attempted-murder finding.	The Court held the officer’s testimony was hearsay and should have been excluded; combined with the instruction error it was not harmless as to attempted murder (but harmless as to robbery and weapon charges).
Admissibility of detention-center phone recording	Recording was probative to link King to the phone number; admission was harmless.	The judge abused discretion admitting the whole, profanity-laden recording without reviewing it; logs or stipulation could have proved the link and the recording was unfairly prejudicial.	The Court found the judge abused discretion by admitting the full recording without review; admission was error but harmless for robbery and weapon counts (not for attempted murder).
Permissive inference of malice from deadly weapon use	Instruction that malice may be inferred from use of a deadly weapon was proper and supported conviction.	(Argued as related to mens rea issue) permissive inference improper if specific intent required.	The Court declined to revisit the permissive-inference instruction given its resolution that attempted murder requires specific intent; it left the Court of Appeals’ treatment intact and suggested legislative clarification might be appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sutton, 340 S.C. 393 (S.C. 2000) (distinguishing ABWIK and attempted murder; language supporting that attempted murder requires specific intent)
State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12 (S.C. 1996) (holding ABWIK requires general intent/malice, not specific intent to kill)
State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340 (S.C. 2013) (discussing admissibility limits of investigator testimony about statements to him)
State v. Brockmeyer, 406 S.C. 324 (S.C. 2013) (defining hearsay under South Carolina evidentiary rules)
Keys v. State, 104 Nev. 736 (Nev. 1988) (reasoned that attempted murder requires specific intent and cannot be based on implied malice)
Ruiz v. Commonwealth, 471 S.W.3d 675 (Ky. 2015) (rejecting concept of a special "investigative hearsay" and clarifying hearsay analysis for officers recounting out-of-court statements)
State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73 (S.C. Ct. App. 2004) (investigator testimony admissible where it did not repeat declarant’s statements)
State v. Tapp, 398 S.C. 376 (S.C. 2012) (harmless-error standard in criminal cases)