*1 527 (Ct. 1991)(citations App. omitted), rev’d in — part on other grounds, —, (1993). To establish Jennings was the driver of the van, Thomas pointed to the deposition testimony of Charles Marion Still. Still driving vehicle positioned behind the truck driven by Waters. Before the accident, Still did see who was driv- ing the van. After the accident, Still approached the van and saw Oliver was pinned between the passenger seat and the side the van. note, however, Still also testified the van over flipped and came to rest upside down after the impact. Moreover, Still that observed neither Jennings nor Oliver was wearing a seat belt. Even when viewing the facts and inferences therefrom
the light most favorable to Thomas, we find this evidence was not sufficient to overcome Jennings’s motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed. J., and Bruce Acting Judge, concur.
Connor, Littlejohn, STATE Carolina, of South Respondent v. Gary Allen RIMERT, Appellant.
(446 (2d) Supreme Court *2 Asheville, Belser, and David G. Bruch, Columbia I. David NC, appellant. for Gen. Atty. Medlock, Deputy Travis T. Attorney Gen. Chief M. Harold Gen. Atty. Zelenka, Asst. Senior J.
Donald Broughton Alexandria Gen. Atty. Jr., Coombs, and Asst. York, respon- Grant, F. Larry Columbia, and Sol. Skinner, for dent. 5, 1994. Apr.
Heard 28, 1994. July Den. Reh. 13, 1994; Decided June Moore, Justice: (GBMI) four ill mentally but found sen- life concurrent four sentenced of murder
counts affirm. tences. FACTS
In June 1990 appellant was hospitalized and diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic in Indiana where he lived with his par- On ents. July 11,1990, he was released from the hospital in In- diana although he was actively hallucinating. He left his medi- cation in Indiana and drove all night to his grandparent’s house near Rock Hill. Shortly after arriving at his grandpar- ent’s house, appellant killed his grandparents and their neigh- bors by stabbing them with a kitchen knife. Appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBRI). ISSUES
1) Did the trial judge err in denying appellant’s motion for a directed verdict?
2) Did the trial judge err in denying appellant’s motion to
charge the jury on the disposition of defendants found NGBRI and those found GBMI?
3) Did the trial judge err in submitting possible verdicts
of guilty and GBMI?
DISCUSSION 1) Directed Verdict Motion
Appellant moved for a directed verdict of NGBRI on ground support finding the sanity. the evidence did not a of judge The trial held there was some evidence of sanity. Appellant citing State v. Milian-Hernandez, 287 S.C. 183, 336 S.E. 476 (1985), argues the trial judge should have granted a directed verdict because the State did not pre- sent sufficient evidence that appellant was sane. We disagree.
In Hernandez, the State relied on the presumption of sanity and the permissible inference of flight as evidence of sanity. We found the presumption of sanity itself does not create a jury issue and the circumstances of Hernandez’s flight negated the permissible inference of flight. We then concluded the State had not presented any evidence of sanity.
Here, there was testimony from an officer who arrived on the crime scene shortly after the murders that appellant knew he had done something wrong. Further, the State presented other evidence of sanity, including that appellant washed off the knife and questioned how he could “get out of this.” There court trial the and sanity appellant’s evidence was sufficient State verdict. a directed for motion his denying in err did not &emdash; v. (1993); State (2d) 254 &emdash;, Poindexter, S.C. v. &emdash; &emdash; &emdash; Ct. (S.C. Sup. &emdash;, S.C. Prince, No. Op. 8). at30No. Sh. (Davis Adv. 13,1993) December filed Verdicts Guilty and of GBMI Effect on Charge Jury Appellant argues judge the trial should have in- jury structed the on the effect of GBMI and NGBRI Appellant argues practical pur- verdicts. that for all jury the and same the are verdicts GBMI and poses informed further fact and this informed been have should hospi- to appellant’s led have would NGBRI a verdict that contends Appellant him. released order a court until talization ar- closing during necessary because were instructions these appellant stating by jury the misled the solicitor gument are who people with deal who by people with “dealt be would mentally ill.” not did though even that ruled court trial The closing solicitor’s to the objection contemporaneous amake that instruction curative a the give he would argument, Huiett, v. State them. concern of no was sentencing dispo (instruction post-verdict on (2d) 862 205, 246 re law). Appellant misstatement to cure is proper sitions instruction offered argues charge. this fused verdicts of the the effects instructions not curative solici cured have could instructions only were disagree. comments. tor’s Poindexter, supra. In addressed also issue was This do of a conviction consequences held we Poindexter *4 whether determine is to function their in jury aid the argu- Therefore, this offense. the committed defendant the merit. is without ment forms verdict GBMI and of
3) guilty Submission judge following The trial submitted the verdicts to the jury: guilty, guilty, NGBRI, Appellant and GBMI. argues judge submitting the trial erred in the verdict no evidence was there argues Appellant’s guilty. of form due his it violated of submission and verdict guilty support compro- ato it led him because and prejudiced rights process GBMI. verdict mise
531 § S.C. Code Ann. (Supp. provides: 17-24-30 In a for a crime when prosecution the affirmative defense insanity is sufficiently by defendant, raised or when sufficient a mental or evidence of disease defect of the defendant is into trier evidence, admitted of fact law, shall find under the verdict applicable and the must state, so whether the is: defendant
(1) guilty;
(2) not guilty;
(3) not guilty by insanity; reason of or (4) but ill. guilty mentally added.) We section (Emphasis hold this submis- requires Wilson, sion of all four of these forms. verdict State v. 306 S.C. (2d) 498, (“must” 413 19 mandatory). is Addition- ally, there evidence and, was sane there- appellant legally fore, the could have him jury guilty. found then he could argues waive the GBMI ver-
diet form because there is no practical difference be- tween and all by submitting GBMI of the forms, the verdict reached a verdict compromise we § GBMI.1Since hold all four in verdict forms 17-24-30must submitted, be appellant cannot waive a verdict form GBMI Ritsema, once sanity. he has raised the issue of See v. People (1981) (GBMI 105 Mich. 380 App. N.W. verdict must be submitted because statute mandates it and it cannot defendant). Therefore, be waived by this is also argument without merit.
Affirmed. Toal, J., Acting C.J., and William H. Bal-
Chandler, Justice, Acting Associate concur. lenger, Finney, J., opinion. dissents separate Justice, Finney, dissenting:
I opinion, dissent. In was entitled respectfully my to a verdict guilty by insanity directed of not reason (NGBRI). attacking constitutionality appeal, appellant On seems of the to be GBMI verdict itself. This issue was not raised nor ruled on below and is (1991). Williams, 410, 401 State v.
therefore barred. *5 at the time the commission if, A defendant is NGBRI act, defect, or lacks the he, as the result of mental disease or right legal to moral or from moral capacity distinguish legal charged morally or to act as or wrong recognize particular 17-24-10(A) 1993). § Ann. legally wrong. (Supp. S.C. Code al- Here, the relies on three of evidence which majority pieces (1) a offi- legedly negate appellant’s showing insanity: police that, shortly killings, appellant cer’s after the testimony (2) he had something wrong; looked like he knew done washed, a knife which could have finding (3) victims; appellant’s could have been used stab deaths, he read the being hours after the as question, context, warrants, how he “could out of this.” Viewed get present none of this evidence is sufficient to issue Milian-Hernandez, State v. appellant’s sanity. Compare evidence of (apparent sanity defense). insanity not inconsistent with appellant’s WILLIAMS, Appellant Deborah v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE SOUTHEAST, Respondent. OF THE COMPANY
(446 (2d) 402) Supreme Court