State v. Smith

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Mandy Lenore Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002209

Appeal From Newberry County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-073
Heard February 9, 2016 – Filed February 24, 2016

REVERSED

Carmen Vaughn Ganjehsani, of Richardson Plowden &
Robinson, PA, and Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer,
both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka, and Assistant
Attorney General Kaycie S. Timmons, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of Greenwood, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant Mandy Lenore Smith appeals her convictions for
murder and desecration of human remains. Smith argues the trial court erred by
(1) charging the jury on the "hand of one is the hand of all" theory of accomplice
liability, (2) admitting her confession into evidence, (3) refusing to charge the jury
on voluntary manslaughter, and (4) excluding evidence regarding a witness's prior
act of unjustifiably killing Smith's dogs.

We find the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to charge the jury on
voluntary manslaughter. Respondent admits the trial court erred in this regard
under current South Carolina law but argues the error was harmless. We find the
error was not harmless. See State v. Belcher, 385 S.C. 597, 611, 685 S.E.2d 802,
809 (2009) ("Errors, including erroneous jury instructions, are subject to harmless
error analysis."); State v. Middleton, 407 S.C. 312, 317, 755 S.E.2d 432, 435
(2014) ("When considering whether an error with respect to a jury instruction was
harmless, we must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained
of did not contribute to the verdict." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we reverse Smith's convictions and remand for a new trial.

Because we reverse and remand for a new trial due to the trial court's refusal to
charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter, we decline to address Smith's
remaining issues. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C.
598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (noting an appellate court need not address
an appellant's remaining issues when its determination of a prior issue is
dispositive).

REVERSED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.