817 S.E.2d 524
S.C. Ct. App.2018Background
- In July 2014, Preston Shands stabbed his wife multiple times with a barbecue fork, chased her to a neighbor’s house and broke into the neighbor’s home; police later arrested him. He admitted the acts at trial but claimed he had no memory because he drank homemade moonshine that was possibly spiked.
- A Laurens County grand jury indicted Shands for attempted murder, kidnapping, burglary, possession of a weapon during a violent crime, and assault and battery; jury convicted him on all counts. Trial court sentenced him to life without parole on several counts; this appeal followed.
- On appeal Shands raised multiple claims including Batson error (gender-based juror strikes), grand jury irregularities, admission of a 1976 murder conviction for impeachment, denial of an involuntary-intoxication jury charge, improper prosecutorial comment, an inferred-malice jury instruction, reply-closing procedure, and denial of a directed verdict on kidnapping.
- The court reversed the attempted murder conviction based on an improper inferred-malice instruction but affirmed convictions for burglary, kidnapping, first-degree assault and battery, and weapon-possession.
- Key factual/legal tensions: (1) whether parole counts as "confinement" under Rule 609(b) for impeachment timing; (2) whether involuntary intoxication instruction was warranted given voluntary consumption of illegal moonshine; (3) whether malice may be implied from use of a deadly weapon where evidence could reduce the offense to a lesser-included crime or where specific intent to kill is required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Shands) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to peremptory strikes | State impermissibly struck male jurors; a similarly situated female was seated, showing pretext | Strikes were gender-neutral: prior convictions (domestic violence; lottery violations) justified strikes | Court found trial court misapplied Batson procedure but Shands failed to meet burden of purposeful discrimination; affirm. |
| Motion to quash indictments (grand jury process) | Grand jury process unconstitutional for county panels; witness at grand jury not listed and proceedings unrecorded | No clear evidence of grand jury abuse; proceedings presumed regular and secrecy is customary | Denial of motion to quash affirmed for lack of clear evidence of irregularity. |
| Admission of 1976 murder conviction under Rule 609(b) | Conviction too remote and highly prejudicial; parole more than ten years earlier makes it inadmissible | State relied on trial-court finding that Shands was still on parole when charged conduct occurred and that impeachment outweighed prejudice | Court held parole/probation do not constitute "confinement" under Rule 609(b); conviction was too remote, but admission was harmless because Shands opened the door through his own questioning, so admission was permitted. |
| Involuntary intoxication jury charge | Requested because moonshine may have been unknowingly spiked; jury should be instructed on involuntary intoxication | Moonshine was an illegal, voluntarily consumed intoxicant; no factual support for involuntary-intoxication charge | Court held no error in refusing involuntary-intoxication charge; voluntary intoxication instruction appropriate. |
| Prosecutorial remarks in closing | Prosecutor made inflammatory, unsupported comments (e.g., "jealous, controlling husband") and raised issues in reply that Shands couldn't respond to | Remarks were fair comment on evidence and witness testimony; reply was proper where defendant introduced evidence and State had final argument | Court found comments supported by record and not prejudicial; trial court did not err. |
| Inferred malice instruction for attempted murder | Instruction allowed jury to infer malice from use of deadly weapon; improper where evidence could reduce to lesserincluded ABHAN or where specific intent to kill is required | State relied on traditional implied-maliciousness doctrine from weapon use | Court held inferred-malice instruction was improper here given King and Belcher reasoning; reversal of attempted murder conviction required. |
| Directed verdict on kidnapping | Argued no actual restraint occurred; statute vague/overbroad | Evidence showed forceful restraint (closing garage, pulling by hair); kidnapping covers restraint regardless of duration | Denial of directed verdict affirmed; kidnapping statute constitutional and facts supported charge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes three-step test for peremptory-strike equal protection challenges)
- State v. King, 422 S.C. 47 (2017) (attempted murder requires specific intent to kill; discusses implied-malice instruction)
- State v. Beaty, 423 S.C. 26 (2018) (discusses scope and procedure of closing arguments and due process review of reply arguments)
- State v. Belcher, 385 S.C. 597 (2009) (holds that implied-malice-from-weapon instruction is improper when evidence could reduce or mitigate the offense)
- State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622 (2000) (discusses Rule 609(b) ten-year presumption against admissibility and use of federal cases as persuasive)
- State v. Scott, 326 S.C. 448 (1997) (pre-Rules case treating parole/sentence-in-effect analysis for remoteness of conviction)