State of South Carolina v. Olandio R. Workman

Greenville, South Carolina criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with domestic violence of a high and aggravates nature, kidnapping, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.

At trial, the State presented evidence Respondent confined and beat his wife, Loretta Workman, in their shared family residence for over forty-eight hours in August 2016. On Monday, August 29, one of Mrs. Workman's coworkers called Greenville County 911 and reported Mrs. Workman had not been at work for a few days and that she had recently seen scratches on Mrs. Workman's neck. Deputy Shannon McHale arrived at the Workman residence at approximately 7:00 p.m. to conduct a welfare check. She knocked on the door, and Respondent answered, opening the door only a few inches. McHale asked to speak to Mrs. Workman, and Respondent claimed Mrs. Workman was away with her mother but would be home in an hour. That statement was untrue, as both Mrs. Workman and her mother testified they had not seen one another in years. McHale asked Respondent for Mrs. Workman's phone number, and Respondent said her phone was either broken or she would not answer a call. McHale then spoke to neighbors, who told her they had not seen Mrs. Workman for several days. McHale called Mrs. Workman 's boss, who confirmed Mrs. Workman had been uncharacteristically absent from work. Based on this information, McHale obtained a warrant to search for Mrs. Workman in the Workman home. Because the situation was potentially volatile, a SWAT team was summoned to assist executing the warrant. SWAT personnel called via loudspeaker for over an hour asking for those inside the home to exit.



Shortly after midnight, the decision was made to enter by force, and officers found Mrs. Workman and her two children, ages two and six, hiding in a bedroom. Respondent fled the home before SWAT could establish a perimeter. Deputy McHale testified Mrs. Workman had two black eyes and that the swelling was so bad she assumed Mrs. Workman could barely see. Another officer interviewed Mrs. Workman at the scene and testified he observed bruises all over the visible parts of her body. One responding officer testified he collected two loaded guns, ammunition, and ammunition clips from the master bedroom. Mrs. Workman was not hospitalized; instead, she and the children went to the home of Respondent's sister, who lived in a gated community, where Mrs. Workman thought they would be safe.



Mrs. Workman fled to another state with her children the next morning after hearing Respondent was looking for her. She remained there until the trial two years later. Mrs. Workman testified Respondent routinely accused her of infidelity. She testified Respondent arrived home at about 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, August 27, immediately asked where her phone was, and began accusing her of cheating. She gave him her phone to look through, and he accused her of deleting text messages. Mrs. Workman testified Respondent repeatedly slapped and punched her with a closed fist in the face, head, and arms. Mrs. Workman testified the violence continued from Saturday through Monday night, with Respondent relentlessly insisting Mrs. Workman had been sleeping with other men and constantly hitting her when she spoke up: "[H]e was just repeatedly hitting and smacking. Every time I even opened my mouth, 'You're lying.' And he'd smack me again, or he'd punch me again, or choke me, and throw me to the floor." Throughout the weekend, Respondent walked around the house in front of the children carrying guns to intimidate and threaten Mrs. Workman. At one point, Respondent hit Mrs. Workman in the hand with the butt of a gun when she raised her arms in self-defense. Throughout the weekend, Respondent did not allow Mrs. Workman to sleep or eat, and he forced her to cook. Respondent broke Mrs. Workman's cell phone, the only phone available to her. Before Respondent left for work on Monday, he took the keys to their cars and told Mrs. Workman the doors and windows to the home were rigged with explosives.



She believed him, testifying, "I don't know what he's capable of. You see what he did to my face." Mrs. Workman testified Respondent cut her hair with a kitchen knife because he wanted to make her ugly. Mrs. Workman testified that on Monday, Respondent ordered her to shower because she was "disgusting." Mrs. Workman testified that when Deputy McHale knocked on the front door on Monday evening, Respondent ordered Mrs. Workman to hide her bruises with makeup, lay down in the bedroom with the kids, and not make a sound. Mrs. Workman testified she later heard the SWAT unit asking her to exit the home, but she did not try to leave because she thought Respondent would hurt her if she did. She was not aware at the time that Respondent had fled the home.



Respondent offered no evidence. During the charge conference, both sides agreed the trial court should charge DV1 as a lesser-included offense of DVHAN. They also agreed DV2 should not appear on the verdict form as a lesser-included offense. However, as we will explain, certain parts of the DV2 statute (subsection 16-25-20(C)) are potentially relevant to proving DV1. This appeal stems from the trial court's refusal of Respondent's request for the trial court to define "moderate bodily injury," a term relevant to both DV1 and DV2 offenses. II. Any trial judge or attorney who has participated in a domestic violence jury trial knows well the intricacies of the domestic violence statutes. As the trial court in this case put it, the DV statutes were written for lawyers and judges, not for juries. That is unfortunate, as juries are required to render verdicts based on proof—or lack thereof—of the statutory elements of a DV offense. The most serious degree of domestic violence is DVHAN, followed by DV1, DV2, and DV3. See S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-20(B)-(D) (Supp. 2023); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-25-65 (Supp. 2023). DV3 is a lesser-included offense of DV2, DV1, and DVHAN; DV2 is a lesser-included offense of DV1 and DVHAN; and DV1 is a lesser-included offense of DVHAN. See § 16-25-20(B)-(D). The predicate act for all four degrees of DV is set forth in subsection 16-25-20(A) ("subsection (A)"), which provides it is unlawful to: (1) "cause physical harm or injury to a person's own household member"; or (2) "offer or attempt to cause physical harm or injury to a person's own household member with apparent present ability under circumstances reasonably creating fear of imminent peril." The tasks of the trial court, lawyers, and juries with respect to a DV3 charge are simple enough, as subsection 16-25-20(D) provides a person commits DV3 "if the person violates subsection (A)." With each higher degree of domestic violence, these tasks become increasingly difficult, especially when the trial court instructs the jury on lesser-included offenses.

Defendant was found guilty.



Affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal.