8.Final Guilt-Phase Jury Instructions

THE COURT: Okay. So thank you for being selected by one. You'll preside over the deliberations for us. There will be some other jurors who have some responsibilities, too, like keeping this organized. There's a lot of it, so I'm going to allow one or two kind of have it explained by my Law Clerk, perhaps, the Clerk of Court, Ms. Frick. And I'll need somebody also to be the computer person to help replay any of the recordings y'all may want to hear. Anyway, we'll get to that in a moment. The purpose of now is to give you my instructions. And for a trial this long, they're not that long. Y'all's job will be to answer the questions of fact presented. Ms. Miller and members of the jury, the State of South Carolina has charged the Defendant, Timothy Jones, with the crimes of murder. You bear in mind that he has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. And by that plea, he is denied all the charges alleged in the indictments. Mr. Jones comes to the court clothed with the presumption of innocence.

This presumption of innocence continues throughout the case and entitles him to a verdict of not guilty unless and until it is dispelled by evidence satisfying you, the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the offenses charged and the State has proved each and every element of those alleged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, the same constitution and law which makes you the jury, the judges or the finders of fact, which I've discussed with you before, makes me the sole and exclusive Judge and instructor of the law. You must accept the law as correct as I am instructing you and apply it to the evidence. Now, you apply the evidence as you find it and reach these findings of fact, you will reach a verdict which will have to be unanimous. Now, if you have a different understanding or a different belief of what the law is and it's different from my instructions, you must set aside your belief, set it aside and accept it as I am now instructing you.

Neither you nor I, for any matter, have to concern ourself with whatever you think the law ought to be, but concern ourselves with the law as I instruct it to you currently. It is my job and my responsibility to instruct the law as I understand it currently is in the State of South Carolina. Now, under the Constitution and the laws of South Carolina, you as a group are the sole finders of facts in this case. I'm not allowed to suggest in any way what I may think about the guilt or innocence of Mr. Jones. You as a group are the judges of the credibility and believability of the witnesses who testified in the case. In passing upon a person's credibility, which is believability, you can take into consideration many things. What was the manner or the appearance of the witness who testified. Was the witness straightforward in answering the questions or was he or she evasive in answering the questions.

Did the witness or how did the witness come to know the facts to which he or she testified to and what was his or her ability to recollect or to know these facts. You can consider whether there's a reason a witness would want to give testimony which would help or hurt one side or the other. In other words, does the witness have a bias or a prejudice in any way towards one side or the other. Is there some reason a witness would want to give testimony which would help or hurt the other side. And additionally, whether a witness' testimony was strengthened or weakened by other testimony or other evidence. You, the jury, may believe as much or as little of each witness' testimony as you deem appropriate. You can believe the testimony of one witness against that of many or just the opposite. You may believe part of a witness' testimony and disbelieve the rest. The fact that testimony is not controverted does not mean you have to accept it as true and undisputed.

You still have to gauge the credibility or the believability of the witnesses providing you that testimony. Now, in this case, there were several witnesses who testified and it was brought up they had a prior criminal record. A person who has a prior criminal record is competent to testify during a trial. A past record does not affect the ability of that witness to testify. The past record may only be considered by you, if at all, in determining the believability. Remember, y'all are the judges of the facts in this case and, therefore, the believability of the witnesses who testify. Now, I complimented y'all yesterday on having listened closely to this trial that's lasted more than 14 days, exclusive of today. Today is day 15. Because of listening closely, y'all should be able and will be able to weigh the evidence. And I tell you now, the weighing of evidence is entirely a mental process.

You're not going to count the number of witnesses on one side and number of witnesses on the other and say there's the answer. You weigh the evidence using your good judgment and your common sense. There are two types of evidence generally presented at trials, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony from a person who has actual knowledge, such as an eyewitness who can testify I saw this, I noticed that. Circumstantial evidence is slightly different. It's proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating the existence of a fact. Our law makes no distinction between the weight or value to be given to either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. There is not a greater degree of certainty required of circumstantial evidence than that of direct. You weigh all the evidence in the case.

However, to the extent the State relies upon circumstantial evidence, all of the circumstances must be consistent with one another and when taken together, point conclusively to the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If the circumstances merely portray the Defendant's behavior suspicious, then the State's proof has failed. So after weighing all the evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial, or any combination of those two, if you're not convinced of the guilt of Mr. Jones beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find him not guilty. Now, as I told you during the trial, the rules of evidence normally do not permit witnesses to testify about their opinions or their conclusions. There is an exception to that rule and it's when we call expert witnesses. Expert witnesses are people who by education and experience have become an expert in an art, science, profession or a calling.

And they may state their opinion as to relevant material matters within that field which they claim to be an expert in and may also state the reasons for that opinion. You should consider any expert opinion received in the evidence in this case and, like any other evidence, give it the weight you think it deserves. If you conclude that the reasons given in support of the opinion are not sound or the expert opinion is outweighed by other evidence, you may disregard the expert opinion entirely. An expert witness' testimony is to be given no greater weight than that of the other witnesses simply because they're an expert. You're not required to accept an expert's opinion even though it's not contradicted. In criminal prosecution cases such as this, the State has the burden of proof. According to our Constitution, a prosecution must prove their case to the standard of proof called beyond a reasonable doubt before a finding of guilt may occur.

If the State fails to meet this high burden, a defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilt. Normally, a defense has no burden because of this presumption of innocence, but in this case, Mr. Jones has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The Defense has the burden of proving that defense. The burden of proof on that defense upon the Defense is by the greater weight or a preponderance of the evidence. As to the burden of proof on the State, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What is a reasonable doubt. It is simply this, a reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt which would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act. Reasonable doubt may arise from evidence which is in the case or from absence or lack of evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of a Defendant's guilt. It is a doubt to which you can assign a reason if the assignment can be done reasonably, firmly and convincingly.

A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable, conscientious and honest person hesitate to act in a matter important to their own affairs. I charge you that the Defendant is entitled to every reasonable doubt which may arise in this case. I also tell you the very fact that y'all, as a group, may engage in full and free discussion on the issue of guilt or nonguilt does not automatically create or mean that a reasonable doubt exist. You must make a determination of whether or not a reasonable doubt exist as to his guilt. If you find the State has not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Jones will be entitled to a verdict of not guilty. Now, criminal intent is a necessary element of each crime and must be proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal intent is always a matter that must be determined by the jury from the circumstances surrounding the situation. There's no way to prove intent to a mathematical certainty.

There's no way medical science can dissect a person's brain and determine what he or she had in mind. So our law states criminal intent may be inferred from the circumstances shown to have existed both before and after the fact. This is how you, as a jury, will make the determination of whether or not requisite intent was present. Criminal intent is a state of mind that operates jointly with an act in the omission or in the commission of a crime. Criminal intent is a mental state, a conscious wrongdoing. It is up to you, the jury, to determine what the Defendant intended to do based on the circumstances which are shown to have existed. And I tell you, the State must prove criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt just as it must prove the other elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I also told you I'm reading these charges to you, these instructions on the law. Y'all will have several copies of these instructions to review if you need, so rest easy.

The specifics, the law in this case, we went over some of this a little bit during jury selection process. Murder, the elements are, killing of another person with malice aforethought. Mr. Jones is charged with five counts of murder. For each indictment, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of these elements for each of these counts of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Malice is hatred, ill-will, hostility towards another person. It is the intentional doing of a wrongful act without just cause or excuse and with the intent to inflict an injury which the law will infer an evil intent. Malice aforethought does not require that malice exist for any particular length of time before the act is committed, but malice must exist in the mind of the Defendant just before or at the time the act is committed. Therefore, there must be a combination of a previous evil intent and the act itself. Malice aforethought may be either expressed or inferred.

The term don't mean different things, but they're different, the manner in which they show, the State attempts to prove malice to have been existing at that time. They do this either by direct evidence or by inference from the facts and circumstances which are proven. Expressed malice may be shown when a person speaks words which express hatred and ill-will toward another person or when a person prepares beforehand to do the act which was later accomplished. For example, lying in wait for a person or any other acts of preparation going to show the deed was within the Defendant's mind could be an example of expressed malice. Malice may be inferred from a conduct showing total disregard for human life. Mr. Jones has raised the defense of insanity. He entered that plea. Criminal intent is required to prove the Defendant is guilty of the crime charged. A person who is insane cannot have criminal intent and, therefore, cannot be found guilty of a crime.

In order to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, it must be shown that at the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense the Defendant had a mental disease or defect, lacked the capacity to distinguish moral or legal right or moral or legal wrong or to recognize the particular act is morally or legally wrong. The key to insanity is the power of the Defendant to distinguish right from wrong in the act itself, to recognize the act complained of was either morally or legally wrong. Now, by raising the defense of insanity, the Defendant does not necessarily admit the crime was committed. The State must still prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant committed the crime. However, the Defendant must prove the insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Preponderance is slightly different from beyond a reasonable doubt. Preponderance of the evidence simply means by the greater weight of the evidence, more likely than not.

If you find, after considering all the evidence, both the State's and the Defense's evidence, that at the time the crime was allegedly committed, it is more likely than not because of a mental disease or defect that the Defendant did not know the alleged crime was morally or legally wrong, you must find the Defendant not guilty by reason of insanity. It is for you to decide what the state or condition of the Defendant's mind was at the time the alleged crime was committed. Insanity caused by the use of drugs or alcohol may be a defense if the insanity is permanent and destroys the Defendant's ability to know right from wrong. However, when voluntary intoxication does not produce permanent brain defects or diseases, it is not a defense of the crime. A person who voluntarily becomes intoxicated is just as responsible for the acts committed while intoxicated as if the person was not intoxicated at all. During jury selection, we discussed the case would have four possible verdicts.

One, if you have any reasonable doubt as to the Defendant's guilt after considering all the evidence, you must find the Defendant not guilty. Two, if you have no reasonable doubt the Defendant committed the crime, but you find it is more likely than not that because of a mental disease or defect that he could not distinguish moral or legal right from wrong or recognize the crime as morally or legally wrong, you must find him guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity. Three, if you have no reasonable doubt the Defendant committed the crime and the Defendant had mental capacity to distinguish moral and legal right from wrong and recognize, or recognize the crime was morally or legally wrong, but you find it more likely than not because of mental disease or defect, the Defendant could not follow the law, you must find the Defendant guilty but mentally ill. As with insanity, the defense has the burden of proving he or she is guilty but mentally ill by a preponderance of the evidence.

Four, the final verdict is guilty. You may only find the Defendant guilty if the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the crime. And that order of proof stands on each indictment. Now, one indictment has a slightly different additional consideration and that's the indictment regarding Nahtahn. As to the indictment of murder against Nahtahn. If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jones committed murder, you may consider whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Jones committed involuntary manslaughter.

To prove involuntary manslaughter, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant unintentionally killed the victim without malice, but while engaged in an unlawful activity not naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm or that the Defendant unintentionally killed the victim without malice while engaged in a lawful activity with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Unintentional means that he did not intend for anyone to be killed or seriously injured. Reckless disregard for the safety of others is more than mere negligence or carelessness. Mere negligence or carelessness is the failure to use the care that a person of ordinary reason would use under the same circumstances. Recklessness is a conscious failure to use ordinary care. Reckless disregard for the safety of others means that you are not interested in the consequences of your act over the rights and safety of others.

The State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's act was the proximate cause of the death. Proximate cause is defined as the direct cause. It is the immediate cause. It is the efficient cause. It is that cause which the death of the victim would not have resulted if but for that cause. There must be a chain of causation from the time the injury was inflicted by the Defendant until the time of the victim's death. Proximate cause does not necessarily mean that it occurred immediately prior to death. Now, regarding statements of Mr. Jones that have been introduced. Statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Jones have been admitted in evidence in this case. While the Court has determined the statements are admissible, I instruct you that you must make the ultimate decision as to whether or not the Defendant made the statement.

If the Defendant did make the statements, you must determine whether the statements were made by the Defendant voluntary and of his own free will. This means the statements were not caused by pressure, force, fear, threats, coercion or intimidation or by hope or promise of leniency or reward of any kind. In determining whether the statements were voluntary, you should consider both the characteristics of the Defendant and the details of the question. Some facts or factors you may consider, the age of the Defendant, the Defendant's education, the lack of education, the Defendant's mental ability or capacity, the Defendant's IQ or his intelligence, the Defendant's background and his environment, the place and length of the detention, the nature of the questioning, the advice or lack thereof to the Defendant of his constitutional rights including, but not limited to the right to remain silent, that any statement could be used against him in a court of law, the right to have a lawyer present and that if he could not afford a lawyer, a lawyer would be appointed to represent him without any costs, and that he could stop making statements at any time.

You must carefully consider all the surrounding circumstances before you give any weight to any of the alleged statements. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the alleged statements were voluntary. If you determine they were or any one of them, they all stand on their own. You may give the statements any further consideration that you deem proper. You must decide what weight, if any, should be given to any of the alleged statements. If you determine the alleged statements were not the free and voluntary statement of the Defendant, you should not consider the statement at all. Now, additionally, with regard to the indictment of Nahtahn, Mr. Jones has raised the defense of accident. An act may be excused on the ground of accident if it is shown that the act was unintentional, that the Defendant was acting lawfully, that reasonable care was used by the Defendant. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not an accident.

I've already discussed with you voluntary intoxication. Insanity caused by the use of drugs or alcohol may be a defense if the insanity is permanent and destroys the Defendant's ability to know right from wrong. However, when voluntary intoxication does not produce a permanent brain disease or defect, it is not a defense to a crime. A person who voluntarily becomes intoxicated is just as responsible for the acts committed while intoxicated as when the person is not intoxicated. Additionally, in determining guilt or innocence of the Defendant, you should not consider any possible penalty or consequence of any of your verdicts. Any consequence of any potential verdicts should not be considered by you in any way in arriving a fair and impartial verdict. Now, Mr. Jones has chosen to claim or exercise his constitutional right to remain silent. That's his right.

I instruct you and emphasize the fact he did not testify is not a factor to be considered by you in any way in your deliberations and in your consideration of the question of guilt or innocence of him. It must not be considered by you in any manner whatsoever. A Defendant has a constitutional right to remain silent and his assertion to that right must not be considered by you in your deliberations. Under your oath, you are to draw no conclusion whatsoever from the fact that he did not testify in this case. The fact that he did not testify may not even be discussed in the jury room. The burden of proof in the case is upon the State. The Defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof remains on the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ms. Miller and other members of the jury, as y'all begin or retire to begin your deliberations, I'm going to express hope that each of you be mindful of the importance of y'all's responsibility.

It's my responsibility to make certain that every trial conducted before me is fair and impartial. Now, my instructions to you have been kind of consistent all the way through from the time we selected y'all. I want y'all's verdict to be confined to this. Consider only the testimony that you've heard in this courtroom, consider the instructions of the law which I have now given you, weighing and deciding the testimony and the evidence fairly and impartially in reaching a unanimous verdict. That's y'all's job. Now, those are my instructions. What happens now is I'm going to send you all back to the jury room. The evidence has got to be organized. The lawyers have an opportunity to make comments on my instructions. They'll get a chance to make -- if I wasn't thorough enough or if I skipped over something, I may bring you back in here. So here's the way it's going to work. You are to go into the jury room, all 18 of you.

When the lawyers make their comments, if I bring you back in here for additional instructions, I will. If not, we're going to bring the evidence to you and the verdict form. And the verdict form has the indictment numbers, has names, such as this. The last page is the one that's different and has the lesser offense. Y'all will have this. It's not a roadmap of what you need to do or which order to do it. Once you begin your deliberations, here's the rules. Y'all talk about the case as long as you want. If somebody wants to see a video or replay of a recording, play it. Y'all are on your own time. You work as long as you want. You need a break, stop deliberating. If somebody wants to step outside, like y'all have done, and exercise, get some fresh air, you don't have to ask the Bailiff can we have a break or the SLED team. You tell them, we're ready for a break and they'll take you. You don't have to get my permission. We're on y'all's time now, okay.

Now, as far as any additional instruction, I'm going to give you my instructions. If you have any questions about those instructions, write it down, send a note to the Bailiff, they'll bring it to me. I'll talk to the lawyers and try to resolve your question, okay. Now, questions I can't answer, why didn't they call so and so as a witness for this. You've got the testimony you're going to get. Why somebody wasn't called, I don't know. We can't answer that. I can't answer that. It's not allowed. All right. If you have any questions, write them down. If you want a break, take it. But all 12 of you, once I pull the alternates -- the alternates will stay here with us. They're going to be here in the Court House because they have to be. But once I pull them out, it's going to be 12 of y'all. And I'll let you know that in a few moments, who's what. Obviously, you know you're one of the 12 because I asked you to be the Foreperson. And again, thank you.

So, all right, the other two things I'm going to do and here's the other thing. As far as working tonight, y'all can start your deliberations and deliberate for 30 minutes if you want to and say, Judge, we want to come back tomorrow at 9:00. I'm going to instruct you, you can't talk about the case, you're going home. Off limits to talking to anybody about it. Come back here tomorrow and we resume deliberations. Since we're on your time, we're going to follow y'all's schedule. Now, we're not going 30 minutes and come back two weeks from now. We can't do that, okay. So that's off the table. There was some notes to me about some obligations Wednesday morning early. I feel certain we can work around those, okay. Those are very easy to manage. There's a computer that we generally send back to the jury room. Identify somebody that can learn to work the computer. I think you've got some pretty good candidates that are computer people.

I'd like somebody to kind of be your evidence manager that can talk with Joy and Whitney and Hope and say okay, here's kind of how it's organized to whatever degree, highest number, what's where, so somebody kind of be that person. We're going to bring it all back there, that's what we're going to do. So step in the jury room. I'm going to ask the lawyers if they need any further comments. If they don't, then we're going to try to get the evidence ready to bring to you. Once you get the verdict form in your hand, that's when you can start talking about the case. Now, it's not a bad time to take a break right now while they're organizing the evidence. Okay. It's a good time for a break. So y'all stay as a group of 18 until I pull you out and give you the verdict form, y'all stay together. Okay. Step back in the jury room. Once you start deliberations 12 people got to be there. If somebody goes to the bathroom deliberations stop. Okay. All 12 have to be there.