Criminal Practice – Murder and Possession of a Weapon During Commission of Violent Crime – Mutual Combat

Listen to this article

Appellant’s appellate argument was not preserved for review.

We affirmed Appellant’s convictions for murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime,

Appellant was convicted for his role in a 2020, shootout at the Walsh Drive Apartments in Hardeeville, South Carolina, during which an innocent bystander, Donovan Hay, was killed. Appellant was gathered outside his mother’s apartment with several individuals when a Chevrolet Malibu driven by Hay entered the apartment complex. Surveillance footage captured Appellant and another person positioning themselves behind the open door of a white Cadillac in the parking lot. One of the Malibu’s passengers, Xavier Rivers, retrieved a semi-automatic rifle from the trunk after stopping near a bush. Washington fired first, and a gun battle ensued between the two groups. Washington fired approximately 22 shots, while Rivers fired roughly five. Rivers and another passenger fled the scene, and Hay was fatally shot during the exchange.

Appellant and Rivers were both charged with murder under a theory of mutual combat and were tried jointly, though each had separate counsel. Both defendants moved for directed verdicts. Rivers argued the State failed to prove malice or mutual combat, while Appellant joined the mutual combat argument and additionally challenged identification and proof of malice aforethought. The circuit court denied both motions, ruling that mutual combat does not require an express agreement and may arise spontaneously when parties willingly engage in conflict. The court found sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury.

During closing argument, Appellant’s counsel conceded Appellant’s guilt but urged the jury to convict him of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, characterizing the incident as an unlawful killing without malice. The jury was instructed on murder, voluntary manslaughter, and mutual combat, and was explicitly told to consider each defendant’s guilt independently. Appellant did not object to these instructions. The jury acquitted Rivers on all charges but convicted Appellant of murder and the weapons offense. The trial court denied Appellant’s post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

On appeal, Appellant argued that because his indictment alleged mutual combat, the State was required to prove each element of mutual combat to support his murder conviction. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, finding it was not preserved because Washington failed to raise the specific claim to the trial court or obtain a ruling on it. The court emphasized that mutual combat is not a standalone offense but a theory of criminal liability underlying crimes such as murder or manslaughter. While the trial court addressed whether sufficient evidence of mutual combat existed, it did not rule on whether Appellant’s conviction depended entirely on a finding of mutual combat.

The court further noted that Appellant’s failure to object to jury instructions allowing independent verdicts, and his own argument for voluntary manslaughter, undermined his appellate claim.

Affirmed.

The State v. Washington (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-001-26, 7 pp.) (Per Curiam) Appealed from Jasper County Circuit Court (Robert J. Bonds, J.) Appellate Defender Gary Howard Johnson, II, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, all for Respondent. South Carolina Court of Appeals Unpublished