*1 GOODSON, STATE, Rеspondent Appellant. E. James (440 S.E. *2 Deputy Savitz, L. South Atty. Joseph of Carolina Chief Of- Appellate Columbia, Defеnse, appellant.
fice of for Medlock, Atty. Gen. T. Atty. Travis Gen.Don- Deputy Chief Zelenka, Elliott, ald J. Deputy Atty. Columbia, Gen Salley and Sol. Ralph Conway, J. respondent. for 6, 1993. Heard Oct. 17, 1994.
Decided Jan. ChiefJustice:
Harwell, (Goodson) James E. Goodson his murder apрeals conviction, alleging failing the trial erred in to instruct the on the jury defenses of accident and We self-dеfense. disagree and affirm.
I. Facts On the January evening drinking Goodson An playing pool with friends at a local bar. argument over dollar a bet between erupted Jake Floyd (Floyd), during Floyd which threatened Goodson with a poоl stick. Goodson from responded drawing his gun pocket. bar, The owner Roy Hemingway (Hemingway), inter- There, vened and еscorted outside. fired the into the and then gun Hemingway of a single gunshot chin, died entered below his traveled slightly upward, and entered the base his brain. trial,
At Goodson testified that went gun “just off’ as Hemingway “coming him.” two witnesses discharged testified after Goodsonheld it shortly chin and to “blow against Hemingway’s threatened his brains Additionally, out.” one witness stated Goodsоn shot exclaimed, and then next?” The trial “Who’s judge rejected request charge to accident and in- murder, to jury manslaughter, structed the and involun- tary juryA convicted of murder and manslaughter. he appealed.
II. Discussion erred in Goodson first asserts charged law to to the is determined Lee, trial. To establish self-defense elements: the defen following defendant must establish 2) the fault in bringing difficulty; without dant must be believed he was imminent actually defendant must have bodily or sustаining injury, life or 3) if his danger; defense actually such danger, reasonably pru his belief of imminent based would have enter оrdinary courage dent firmness immi belief; if the was in tained the same defendant were such as would warrant the circumstаnces danger, firmness, and strike ordinary prudence, courage man of harm, from or fatal blow to save himself *3 lifе, and; the no other probable his own defendant had life his own or sustain avoiding danger means of the he in this than act as did bodily injury particular ing (2d) (1984). Davis, v. 45, 282 317 instance. S.C. 452 he be Here, no evidence which shows that in his life or sustain danger lieved he was time the he shot ing injuries in immi that was There also is we Hemingway. Accordingly, at the time in the trial did err to instruct judge find that the nоt trial in refusing next the erred judge asserts on the defense of accident. We of acci For a homicide to excusable uninten dent, killing it must be shown was tional, lawfully, and that acting handling weapon. in the due care was exerсised (2d) (1945). Brown, contends 514, 32 S.E. 825 205 S.C. accidentally discharged lawfully he was acting in self-defense.1 Homicide excusable аcting because he was 1 reject possessed claim because Goodson State’s precluded. Rather, of accident is the burden rests the defense beyond in which prove doubt the unlawful act the State to reаsonable engaged cause of the homicide. the accused was least Brown, (2d) S.C. on the ground of accident when it appears that the defendant in acting lawfully self-defense victim was shot by through unintentional discharge of a gun. State McCaskill, (2d) 300 387 S.E. above,
stated Goodson presented no evidence from which the jury could have found that he shot while in acting self-defense. Therefore, the trial did not err in refusing to give requested Weaver, acсident charge. See State v. (2d) (1975) (a should not give requested instruction that an submits issue which is not evidence). presented or supported by the For the reason, foregoing Goodson’s conviction is Affirmed. Finney
Chandler, JJ. concur. Moоre, Toal, J., in concurring separate opinion.
Toal, Justice, concurring:
I concur with the the result. I would disagree, however, with footnоte 1. I would hold that Goodson was not lawfully armed at the time he shot victim; and killed the and, therefore, he was not еntitled to a charge of accident.
In McCaskill, (1990), we held that a person self-defense inis lawful pos- session оf a weapon. Goodson attempts to bring himself under McCaskill, supra by that he claiming was still lawfully armed in self-defensе when he shot and killed Hemingway.
In the defendant was armed in self-defense when the gun accidentally discharged killing the viсtim. The component McCaskill related solely to the de- fendant’s lawful act of arming herself. McCaskill was in her *4 home and she had been threatened the victim. In sharp contrast, Goodson was in a bar where he claims legally to have armed himself against another person who threatened him with a stick. pool The incident which gavе rise to Goodson’s claim of self-defense ended as the alleged aggressor retreated. Goodson wаs then led outside of the bar bar owner where the shooting occurred.
Unlike who could lawfully possess the weаpon her home, own Goodson unlawfully possessed the weapon §Ann. it on S.C. Code 16-23-20 person. carried to a gave the incident inside the bar rise Assuming arming render act of claim sufficient to Goodson’s lawful, any being himself lawfulness еnded when he was threatened. longer it 1 to the extent agree I with footnote must be the cause of proximаte states that the unlawful act is de the defendant’s defense injury before alone not in feated. unlawful firearm рossession The injury. all cases be the cause See proximate generally, Wayne Scott, Jr., Criminal Law R. Lafave Austin (1972). But, where, here, § 79 firearm, all drinking heavily day, has possesses been kills the owner with the unlawful the unlawful bar the firearm a cause of the injury. possession 543, 70 (1911); Badgett, See S.E. Gilliam, Tucker, (1910); THRIFT, Thrift, STATE, Appellant Gary David The v. Glenn V. V. John Gilreath, Sr., Carroll, Respon- Rogers Dennis Joel Lewis STATE, THRIFT, Appellant Respondent. dents. v. Thomas E. The The STATE, STATE, THRIFT, Appellant Respondent. v. Samuel F. REEVES, Appellant Respondent. v. Norman Franklin (440