State v. Scott

Justice PLEICONES,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent and would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals because I find, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to petitioner, that there is “evidence from which it could be inferred that [he] committed” involuntary manslaughter. State v. Sams, 410 S.C. 303, 308, 764 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2014). Unlike the majority, I would not require that a defendant testify or present evidence that he acted in a criminally negligent manner in order to obtain such a charge but rather would review the evidence, including that presented by the State, to determine whether a charge was warranted. Here, there is evidence from which a jury could find that petitioner acted intentionally in moving to deflect the perceived threat, but with reckless disregard of the possible consequences. That petitioner is an experienced martial arts practitioner goes to his intent when acting and to the skill with which he executed the move, not to his reasoned consideration of the possibility that the consequence could be that the victim would stab herself in the neck.

I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and order a new trial.