Appellant, an off-duty Marion County deputy sheriff, was involved in a fight with Richard Turner, when his service revolver discharged killing Turner. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. We affirm.
He asserts the trial court erred in allowing into evidence tеstimony of another independent crime (night hunting) аllegedly committed by him on the same night. We disagree.
According to the general rule:
“ ‘[EJvidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific сrime charged when it tends to establish, (1) motive; (2) intеnt; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan еmbracing the commission of *536 two or more сrimes so related to each other thаt proof of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. State v. Lyle, 125 S. C. 406,118 S. E. 803 (1923).’ ” State v. Wilson, S. C.,266 S. E. (2d) 426 , 427 (1980).
In Lyle the Court held that evidence of other crimes must be striсtly scrutinized before it admission. If there is any doubt regarding the connection between the аcts, the accused is to be given the benefit of the doubt and the evidence should not be admitted.
“The acid test is its logical relevancy to the particular expected purpose or purposes for which it is sоught to be introduced. If it is logically pertinent in thаt it reasonably tends to prove a matеrial fact in issue, it is not to be rejected mеrely because it incidentally proves thе defendant guilty of another crime.” Lyle, suprа, 125 S. C. at 417, 118 S. C. 803. (Emphasis added.)
The State’s theory of the case was appellant had either intentitonally inflictеd the mortal wounds or did so as a result of criminal negligence rather than accidentally as asserted by appellant. The evidеnce of night hunting, and the manner in which appellant used the weapon, was relevant to the State’s theory of the case, and wе conclude this evidence, occurring оn the same night as the homicide, revealеd appellant’s state of mind and was admissible.
Appellant next asserts the trial court еrred in refusing to charge the law of self defеnse. We disagree.
The law to be charged is determined from the evidence presented.
State v. Jones,
273 S. C. 723,
*537 We conclude the trial court did not err in refusing to charge the law of self defense and affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.