Case Law State v. Williams

State v. Williams

Document Cited Authorities (25) Cited in (4) Related

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV, both of Columbia, and Third Circuit Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of Sumter, all for Respondent.

MCDONALD, J.:

James Caleb Williams appeals his convictions for attempted murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because no direct or substantial circumstantial evidence supports a finding that Williams had a specific intent to kill the victim. We find the doctrine of transferred intent inapplicable to this charge of attempted murder; thus, we reverse Williams's convictions.1

Facts and Procedural History

In the early morning hours of May 2, 2015, Corporal Randy Jones of the Sumter Police Department (SPD) was dispatched to a shooting outside Club Cream in Sumter. In the club parking lot, Corporal Jones found Ashley R., a fifteen-year-old female who had been shot in the leg. Law enforcement subsequently recovered six shell casings and a black Springfield model XD .40 Smith and Wesson from the parking lot area.

On March 17, 2016, the Sumter County Grand Jury indicted Williams for two counts of attempted murder and one count of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. Williams pled not guilty, and his jury trial began on July 17, 2017.

Chelsea Rogers reluctantly testified that on May 2, 2015, she went to Club Cream for a teen party. She explained a "teen party" is "where a lot of teens get together, you know, have fun, but something bad always ends up happening." Rogers and her friends arrived around 11:30 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. and were "dancing and having fun" when she saw "something going on" on the other side of the club; however, when nothing materialized, the group went back to dancing.

Sometime between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m., Rogers left the club to go home. Her then-boyfriend, Malik Myers, exited a few minutes later. Rogers recalled, "After that, we [were] walking to the car and I told [Myers] to come on, let's go. When we got over there to the car, I heard a gunshot." At that point, Myers "ran over there—to where his friends were, I guess, and that's when I—I heard another gunshot, and then I heard another one come back from right where everybody was at." She further stated, "I didn't know if [Myers] had [a gun] or not, but I did not see him with one."

Ashley R. arrived at the party between 10:00 and 11:00 p.m., and was leaving Club Cream as it closed at 2:00 a.m. When Ashley R. reached the parking lot, she heard "fight, gun, shooting. That's when—by the time I could duck down, [it felt] like a bee sting. I touched my leg, and started to panic."2 She heard gunshots and saw Myers, whom she had met earlier that day. Ashley R. testified, "I [saw] him shoot after—I [saw] the other like two—two shots before he [shot], that's when I ducked down." After initially answering that she did not see Myers shoot first, Ashley R. explained, "I [saw Myers] with a gun, that's when I heard the—before he [shot], I heard like two more, two or three gunshots before he [shot]." On the night of the incident, Ashley R. told law enforcement she was shot by an "unknown black man" and recalled at trial that she did not really know Myers until he "came to me and apologized to me afterwards. That's how I [got] to know him."

On cross-examination, Ashley R. admitted that in her written statement to police, she identified Myers as the man who started the shooting and her statement did not include that she heard shots before Myers fired his weapon. Defense counsel asked her on cross-examination:

Q: You can't testify today who was shooting the shots, who was actually shooting, can you?
A: Not the first two shots.
....
Q: And the shot that hit you, you pretty sure who shot you?
A: Like when it first happened?
Q: Uh-huh.
A: Since I [saw Myers], I thought he shot me, but that's when—because after that, because he came to me, he apologized— ...
Q: Why would he apologize if he did not shoot you? What is he apologizing for?
A: I'm not sure.
Q: He apologized for shooting you?
A: I'm not sure. After he said that, I said, "You good. I'm not mad at you." He said, "Okay."
Q: Okay. But you don't know what he was apologizing for?
A: No sir.

Myers pled guilty to one count of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN) for his involvement in the Club Cream incident. Despite his prior written statement to the police indicating he and Williams "had beef" in the past, Myers testified at trial: "Man, I just came from a hospital, man. I wasn't thinking right when I was writing my statement.... [I]t wasn't no altercation. It was just some words." Myers also contradicted his written statement—in which Myers claimed Williams shot him in the leg—by denying Williams made any hand gestures toward him while inside the club. Myers admitted he had his .38 revolver that night "because anything could have happened after the club," and repeatedly denied any knowledge of whether Williams was the person who shot him. Myers testified, "I didn't know whether James Williams was shooting or not. I'm just saying—I—you telling me—I just know I got shot. You're saying he's the shooter. I'm telling you[,] I didn't know he was shooting. That's what this statement said."

At the conclusion of the State's case, Williams moved for a directed verdict, arguing neither Ashley R. nor Myers could identify their shooter and the State's expert could not conclusively connect the bullet removed from Ashley R.’s leg with Williams's weapon.3 The circuit court denied the motion, finding "there is evidence in the record, both direct and circumstantial that would support the charges." The circuit court explained its "recollection of the testimony [was] that the defendant, Mr. Williams, fired first and was firing at both Mr. Malik Myers and that by transferred intent, at the other victim in this case."

Williams testified in his own defense. He arrived at the club alone around 11:00 p.m. and, at some point during the party, Myers bumped into him. Williams explained, "We didn't say nothing to each other or anything, but I already knew like something was going to happen, like once I left. That's why I was already in my car getting ready to go ahead and leave." Williams knew something was going to happen with Myers "[b]ecause we had problems since we [were] in middle school, like we always had words. But I [knew] it was probably going to end up coming to something one day."

Williams stated he was walking to his car when he saw Myers approaching. As Myers had a gun and began shooting at him, Williams "started shooting, and that's when I ran off when I [saw] the security guard coming, and I threw my gun under—up under the tree." Williams testified, "But when I was shooting, I was shooting into the back of my car so he would think I was shooting back at my car." Williams claimed he shot into the back of his own car so that Myers "would have thought I was shooting at him, and he would have been—he would have tried to run off." However, Myers did not run. Instead, Myers "came close to shooting [Williams]" and shot Qawiyy McFadden in the ear. Williams then left the parking lot to drive McFadden to the hospital.4

On cross-examination, Williams admitted he had a black .40 caliber Springfield with him in the parking lot and that he fired shots into his own car in an effort to scare Myers. He found five bullet casings on top of his car, and regarding the sixth, testified, "I probably shot it into the ground." Williams reiterated that Myers shot at him first and claimed there were more than two shooters in the parking lot.5 He testified he did not shoot Ashley R., and he did not intend to shoot anyone. McFadden was sitting in Williams's car when he saw "everybody coming out the club." Williams's car was backed into the parking space, with the front of the car facing the club. McFadden testified, "I got out the car to see what was the next move for the night. And then mix-up—the shots starting going off when I was out of the club. I [saw Williams] go like towards the back of his car and by maybe the first five shots, I was already hit." On cross-examination, McFadden admitted he did not know if Williams did any of the shooting, nor did he know who fired the first shot.

At the end of his case, Williams renewed his motion for a directed verdict. The circuit court denied the motion, finding, "there is evidence in the record by which the jury could conclude that the offenses occurred ... and the believability of those witnesses will be a matter for the jury to determine."

The jury found Williams guilty of the attempted murder of Ashley R., but not guilty of the attempted murder of Myers. The jury also found Williams guilty of possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime. The circuit court sentenced Williams on the attempted murder conviction to fifteen years’ imprisonment, suspended upon the service of ten years, and five years’ probation. As to his conviction for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, the court sentenced Williams to a concurrent five years’ imprisonment.

Standard of Review

"In ruling on a motion for directed verdict in a criminal case, a trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State."

State v. James , 362 S.C. 557, 561, 608 S.E.2d 455, 457 (Ct. App. 2004). "The trial court is concerned with the existence or nonexistence of evidence, not its weight." Id. "The accused is entitled to a directed verdict when the State fails to present evidence on a material element of the offense charged." State...

1 cases
Document | South Carolina Supreme Court – 2023
State v. Williams
"...of Ashley R. and the possession charge. The court of appeals reversed Williams’ convictions in a 2-1 opinion. State v. Williams , 435 S.C. 288, 867 S.E.2d 430 (Ct. App. 2021). The majority concluded the trial court erred in not granting Williams’ directed verdict motion as to the attempted ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
1 cases
Document | South Carolina Supreme Court – 2023
State v. Williams
"...of Ashley R. and the possession charge. The court of appeals reversed Williams’ convictions in a 2-1 opinion. State v. Williams , 435 S.C. 288, 867 S.E.2d 430 (Ct. App. 2021). The majority concluded the trial court erred in not granting Williams’ directed verdict motion as to the attempted ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex