*1 Decided October denied November Henderson, Henderson, Jr.,
Henderson & DeVaul L. Michael P. Ludwiczak, for appel- Cox, Cox, M. Edenfield, Gerald Susan W. for Edenfield
lee. S96A1026. SHEPPARD v. THE STATE.
BENHAM, Chief Justice. appeal felony This is from Keith Brian convictions of possession during murder and crime.1 of a firearm commission a procedural arguments concerning He raises and substantive the admission of evidence of difficulties between him family, former wife and her and contends that the evidence did not authorize his convictions.
1. The State
evidence at trial to establish the follow-
ing.
longtime
victim,
were
friends and
by marriage, having
were related
married sisters. Prior to the events
leading
appeal, Sheppard’s marriage
to this
ended in divorce. When
years
former wife told
some
divorce,
two
after the
Sheppard began
intended to date other
a series of
harassing
provoking
confrontations with his former wife
family, including Rickerson. In at least one of
encounters,
those
Sheppard pointed
group
a rifle at his former wife and a
included
Rickerson’s
The confrontation in fatally
genesis
hang-up
shot Rickerson had its
in a series of
tele-
phone
suspecting
calls to
Rickerson’s home.
caller,
was used a caller identification feature of his tele-
phone
originated.
to ascertain the area from which the calls
dispatched
brother,
to check the area from which the
July 19,
Appellant
The
crimes occurred on
arrested on
same
2, 1992, murder, felony
(aggravated assault),
was indicted on
possession
October
for
during
felony,
possession
by
commission of a
of a firearm
a convicted felon.
11, 1994,
The trial
13,
commenced on October
returned its verdict on October
1994, convicting Sheppard
felony
possession
murder and
commission
Appellant
imprisonment
of a crime.
was sentenced
life
murder and received a
five-year
consecutive
sentence
the firearm
conviction. His motion for new
trial,
10,
5, 1995,
February 13, 1996
filed November
1994 and amended June
was denied on
appeal
28,1996.
February
appeal
and a notice of
was filed on
was docketed in this Court
11,
orally
10,
argued
on March
1996 and was
on June
pay phone
reported
a
in that
he
came,
saw
calls
area,
hanging up.
repeatedly dialing
Rickerson then
Sheppard.
followed
When
found
search for
angrily
parking
him
lot and
him to a convenience store
During
hang-up
confrontation,
calls.
of his truck. Rickerson
from the window
extended
approached
*2
Sheppard
Sheppard
struck
the face.
the truck and
wounding
time,
in the abdomen and
the
at that
Rickerson
fired
causing
suffi
the
The evidence was
him to bleed to death at
scene.
Sheppard guilty
a rational
trier of fact to find
cient to authorize
assault)
beyond
(aggravated
a reasonable doubt of
a crime.
v. Vir
commission of
(99
(1979); Chien-Chyun
ginia,
2781, 61 LE2d
with his former did not all involve only eight separate and his former wife. Of the instances of admitted, as to which evidence was four of them only: Sheppard and involved his former wife when informed begin dating to desired other said he did not it; he would do he called the know what next support men; if threatened to cut off child she dated other some two work; and one-half weeks he followed her over three Sheppard again weeks mer wife with his intimidated his for- running
truck, off almost the road and threat- ening physical boyfriend. harm to her family members, four all incidents involved other
three of them involved direct confrontations between days being Rickerson: two informed his former wife dating, begin phone, intended called her on the threat- ening using epithets her and racial obscenities, then paced perimeter slap- property, went to her home ping where of her menacing a stick in his hand in a manner until con- *3 day stick; fronted him and took the incident, on the after the stick per- returned to his former home to wife’s retrieve some belongings, kicking objects sonal and and that had placed continuing take, been for him to until Rickerson confronted using; him and told him to leave because he was one daughter, week chasing terrorized his former and wife their cursing; her car with his truck and over one week killing, Sheppard that, about six weeks before the confronted (a family gathering gather- his former at a at Rickerson’s home invited), ing pointing to which was not a rifle into her car (which occupied by boyfriend, Sheppard’s daughter, was her also daughter) pointed Rickerson’s upon backing away only until a rifle at where- pointed abandoning his rifle at the standoff and pointed
when another member out to him daughter harming that was his own he was with his behavior. appears, contrary Sheppard’s argument appeal, It thus on testimony the incidents of as to which allowed were not limited to his only Sheppard those in which and his former wife were involved were part continuing escalating pattern of a harassment family. extended to her with also contention that the evidence purpose.
was not admissible for
valid
Evidence of
an
accused and vie-
type
received
evidence which “should be
tim is a
of character
pro-
at all if there is no
and should not be admitted
with care
[Cit.]
present
. .”
For
case. .
connection with the
bative
connection between
there to be
present
case,
must be: “some link
asso-
ties and the
there
together
preceding
something
ciation,
which draws
something
gives
subsequent acts,
color
cause
light upon
transaction,
the motive of
effect to the
and sheds
parties.
[Cit.]
.”
. .
(b)
(2)
Other
State,
“Without connection between the prior prior charged, outweigh prejudicial act and the crime nature of the probative [Cits.]
act evidence will its value.” finding However, a trial court’s that “other transactions” evi- necessarily implicit finding dence is relevant constitutes an probative outweighs prej- that the value of that evidence its impact. udicial
Farley As noted above, instances of difficulties between including logically members, Rickerson, were connected to the con- agree, frontation in which shot Rickerson death. We implicit finding proba- therefore, with the of the trial court that the outweighed prejudicial tive value of the contested evidence its impact. Judgment except concur, Fletcher, J., All the Justices P. affirmed. specially. J., Sears, concur who Presiding concurring specially. Justice, Fletcher, majority opinion perpetuates analysis improper of “other admissi- Prejudice determining
transactions” evidence. is a in factor bility, relevancy. aOnce trial court decides the evidence of value of relevant, balance against prejudicial its effect. Because the trial court admitting this case did not abuse its discretion in specially evidence, I ties concur in Division 4. joins special
I am authorized state that Justice Sears concurrence.
Decided October denied November Fleming, Blanchard, Durham, Blanchard, James G. Jr., Craig, Attorney,
Daniel J. District Charles R. Assis- Attorney, Attorney Bowers, tant General, District Michael J. Allison Goldberg, Attorney appellee. General, Assistant
S96A1388. DURRENCE v. DURRENCE et al. Justice. Hunstein, petition conveyance Kenneth Durrence filed a set aside the property County previously part certain in Tattnall that was