Bentley Collins was convicted Jan. 30, 2009, by a Dillon County jury of one count of involuntary manslaughter and three counts of owning a dangerous animal in connection with the death of Matthew Davis.
Matthew was found dead by his mother Nov. 3, 2006, after six dogs attacked him in the driveway of Collins’ Home Light Road residence in the Emanuelville community in Dillon County.
Collins is serving a five-year sentence in the case. He was also required to pay for the Davis boy’s funeral.
In their opinion to overturn the jury's verdict at the trial court level, the appellate judges wrote that Circuit Court Judge Paul Burch erred when he allowed 10 pre-autopsy photos of the child's partially eaten body to be distributed to jurors.
"Because we find the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the photos, we reverse and remand for a new trial," wrote Chief Judge John C. Few in the majority opinion. Judges Paula H. Thomas and Aphrodite K. Konduros concurred with the opinion.
The issues of the pre-autopsy photos was raised at the original trial. The prosecution argued then that the probative value of the photos was primarily to establish that the dogs’ attack on the boy was unprovoked.
The state’s theory was that Collins underfed the dogs and because they were hungry they became aggressive. Therefore, said prosecution counsel, the photos were needed by the pathologist to show that the dogs actually ate the boy, and to corroborate the testimony of the dog behavior expert called by the state.
The Court of Appeals panel recognized some validity in the state’s original argument but Few wrote that “given the intense emotional reaction caused by viewing these photos, we cannot say that their admission into evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Bentley also appealed Burch's denial of motions that called for a directed verdict in both crimes.
The appeals court, though, ruled there was "evidence in the record to support each element of both crimes. Therfore, the trial court ruled correctly in denying Collins' motions for directed verdict," according to the decision handed down by the appeals court.
Under state law, a dangerous animal is defined as a dog or cat the owner knows is likely to attack.
The animal must attack a person outside the space where it is confined.
(SCNow - Feb 15, 2012)
