State v. Kimbrell
362 S.E.2d 630, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 352, 294 S.C. 51 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to give a requested jury instruction on a theory of defense, such as 'mere presence,' if the instruction is a correct statement of the law and is supported by the evidence presented at trial.
Facts:
- A confidential informant and an undercover police officer, O’Donald, arranged to buy cocaine from Gene Kimbrell at his mobile home.
- During the initial transaction, Gene's ex-wife, Vicki Kimbrell, was present in the mobile home but did not participate in the drug sale.
- Three days later, O'Donald returned for a larger 'buy-bust' operation and saw cocaine and scales on the kitchen counter and table.
- Gene Kimbrell told Vicki Kimbrell, "the toot [cocaine] is laying on the table, we’re going outside, watch it," as he and O'Donald went outside.
- Kimbrell walked from her bedroom, through the kitchen where the cocaine was located, and then returned to her bedroom.
- When the police raid began, Kimbrell ran out of her bedroom shouting a warning that a car had arrived, then retreated back into the bedroom.
- Upon entering, officers found Kimbrell sitting on her bed with the butt of a pistol protruding from her pocketbook.
Procedural Posture:
- Vicki Kimbrell was charged with trafficking in cocaine in a South Carolina state trial court.
- At trial, Kimbrell moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court admitted a pistol found in Kimbrell's pocketbook into evidence over her objection.
- The trial court denied Kimbrell's request for a jury instruction on 'mere presence.'
- The jury convicted Kimbrell of trafficking in cocaine, and she was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment.
- Kimbrell (Appellant) appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court commit reversible error by refusing to provide a requested jury instruction that a defendant's 'mere presence' at the location of contraband is, by itself, insufficient to prove knowing possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Chandler, Justice
Yes. The trial court's failure to give the requested jury instruction on 'mere presence' constitutes reversible error. The requested charge—that mere presence where drugs are found is not sufficient to convict without more—is a correct statement of the law supported by precedent such as State v. Brown and State v. Ellis. Because the evidence presented at trial raised the issue of whether Kimbrell was merely present, she was entitled to have the jury instructed on this legal principle. The trial judge's general instructions on possession did not adequately cover the substance of the requested charge, and this failure warrants a reversal of the conviction and a new trial. The court rejected Kimbrell's other claims, finding there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury and that the pistol was properly admitted under the plain view exception as it was relevant to her knowledge and intent.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the critical importance of proper jury instructions to ensure a fair trial. It establishes that a general instruction on the elements of a crime may not be sufficient if the defense's theory of the case rests on a specific, legally correct principle like 'mere presence.' The ruling obligates trial judges to provide specific, requested instructions that are supported by the evidence, thereby preventing juries from convicting defendants based solely on their proximity to criminal activity without proof of the requisite intent. This precedent strengthens defendants' rights by ensuring that juries are explicitly told that presence alone is not proof of guilt, forcing the prosecution to prove active or constructive participation.
