State v. Rivera - pointing and presenting firearm precludes involuntary manslaughter charge
In State v. Rivera, decided September 7, 2010, the S.C. Supreme Court held that, in the absence of self-defense, pointing and presenting a firearm precludes an involuntary manslaughter charge. At any rate, it appears that the majority opinion re-affirms this principle of law while ignoring the facts of the case in front of them.
Rivera was charged with murder following an altercation at a nightclub in Greenville, and there was conflicting testimony from Rivera and from witnesses as to what actually happened. There are two definitions of involuntary manslaughter, the one at issue here is: "the unintentional killing of another without malice, while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others." Basically, if a person has armed themselves in self defense, and a reckless discharge of the weapon results in another's death, the jury can find the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter instead of murder.
The majority opinion recites some of the testimony provided at trial and concludes that there is no evidence of self defense, because the defendant "admitted at trial he was not in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury." Because there was no evidence of self defense, there could be no involuntary manslaughter under the facts of this case. The standard is: "where there is evidence from which the jury could infer that the defendant committed a lesser offense, the trial judge must submit the lesser-included offense to the jury."
It all sounds reasonable, until we read the dissent and realize that the majority opinion appears to be ignoring facts from the case, instead choosing only the facts that support their opinion. For example:
The record in this case is replete with testimony that Rivera was the victim of an unprovoked physical attack by Delman Mauricio Arias. The testimony also indicates that although Rivera had the gun on his person he did not present it until after he was beaten, knocked to the ground, and repeatedly kicked. Even then, the gun was unintentionally presented when it fell down Rivera's pant leg and onto the ground resulting in a scramble for the gun between Rivera and Arias. Rivera testified that he got control of the gun and fired it into the ground when Arias continued to advance. Furthermore, in response to the solicitor's question concerning why Rivera pulled the gun, Rivera testified "The truth is that I did it just because I was nervous and because somebody was hitting me, beating me."
When we argue a case to a judge, or a jury, or an appellate court, it is always imperative that we let them know the bad facts up front - because it is better to hear the bad facts from us than from our opponent, and because we appear dishonest if we leave those facts out of our presentation. I am not sure what to make of the Rivera opinion, other than, in light of the facts left out by the majority opinion, it is confusing at best and dishonest at worst.
If the majority opinion were to take the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the defendant, under the "any evidence" standard, and give a reasoned opinion as to why those facts do not constitute evidence of self defense, then this decision would make sense. Otherwise, what does the opinion stand for?
