Criminal Practice – Insanity Defense – State’s Evidence – Jury Trial

Listen to this article

State v. Senter (Lawyers Weekly No. 011-190-11, 5 pp.) (James E. Lockemy, J.) Appealed from Horry County Circuit Court. (Michael G. Nettles, J.) S.C. App.

Holding: Defendant presented lay and expert opinion that he had delusions of persecution by the FBI and did not know right from wrong when he shot his wife; however, the state presented lay testimony that defendant was calm around the time of the shooting and evidence that defendant planned the shooting and tried to hide it. Evidence of defendant’s sanity was sufficient to create an issue for the jury.

We affirm defendant’s convictions of assault and battery with intent to kill and criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature.

There is no federally recognized right to a criminal trial before a judge sitting alone. Defendant argues the trial court violated his right to due process and effective presentation of a defense when the court denied his request to waive his right to a jury trial.

On appeal, defendant maintains the “expert testimony and psychiatric theory” presented at trial “were too difficult for a lay jury to deal with fairly.” Defendant argues he has the right to present a defense that can be comprehended, understood, and fairly considered. Because defendant failed to raise this argument to the trial court, it is not preserved for our review.

Defendant also argues the trial court erred in failing to find Rule 14(b), SCRCrimP, was unconstitutional. Defendant failed to cite any authority to support this argument. Accordingly, we find it is abandoned.