South Carolina’s Murder Statute & the Indictment of the Officer Who Shot Walter Scott

Today, former police officer Michael T. Slager was indicted for murder in connection with the shooting death of Walter Scott in North Charleston. As such, I though I would do a brief post about South Carolina homicide law. Under South Carolina homicide law, the prosecution can secure a murder conviction by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim with malice aforethought:

“Malice aforethought” is defined as “the requisite mental state for common-law murder” and it utilizes four possible mental states to encompass both specific and general intent to commit the crime. Black’s Law Dictionary 969 (7th ed.1999). These four possibilities are intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life (abandoned and malignant heart), and intent to commit a felony (felony murder rule). State v. Kinard.

The first two of these — intent to kill and intent to inflict grievous bodily harm — are express malice. If the jury finds that the defendant acted with express malice, it must return a murder conviction. The last two of these — depraved heart and felony murder — are implied malice. If the jury finds either of these, it may return a murder conviction, but it also has the ability to return an involuntary manslaughter conviction (a killing without malice).

Depraved heart murder basically works as follows. First, of course, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted (or failed to act in the face of a legal duty) and caused the victim’s death. Second, the prosecution must prove mens rea of depraved heart murder. This mens rea contains both a subjective and an objective element: (1) subjective element: that the defendant acted with extremely reckless indifference to the value of human life; and (2) objective element: that it was highly probable that the defendant’s act/omission would result in death. Third, once the prosecution has proven this mens rea, the jury must still infer malice to convict the defendant.

Here’s a real world hypothetical I use in class to teach depraved heart murder (the answer is “yes”):

Hypothetical 8.5: 

Daniel McCall and two accomplices were driving on an interstate when they saw A.R.M. Stroud standing beside his automobile, working on it. McCall and his accomplices stopped to rob Stroud. They offered to help him and when he opened his trunk to get more tools, McCall forced Stroud, who was a 72 year-old man with heart problems, into the trunk of his own car. McCall, following his accomplices, drove Stroud’s car off the interstate, down a paved road and then turned onto a dirt road. This was an isolated place. There, they removed Stroud from the trunk and searched him, taking his money. They then forced Stroud back into the trunk of his car and left him in the car on the dirt road.  Several days later, Stroud’s body was found in the trunk of his car. The testimony of record established that as a result of his being forced into the trunk and left there, Stroud died of a heart attack. According to the medical testimony of record, Stroud was “literally scared to death.” McCall is charged with murder. Can he be convicted? See State v. McCall, 405 S.E.2d 414 (S.C.App. 1991).

-CM