By Betsy Finklea
The sentencing of Damien Inman, who was one of three defendants charged in the August 2009 murder of 75-year-old Mary Alice Stutts, took place in General Sessions Court on Thursday, October 29th in front of Judge Paul Burch.
Inman was sentenced to natural life for burglary-first degree and natural life for murder to run concurrently.  He has 10 days to file an appeal.
He was sentenced on other charges at the time of his second trial.

First Trial
The first trial of Damien Inman took place in December 2010 in front of Judge Thomas Russo.  Two juries were thrown out before a third jury was seated.  Then early on in the trial before the presentation of the case to the jury began, Inman indicated twice that he wanted to enter a plea.  As part of a limited-time plea deal, the state offered 50 years for six charges including murder and kidnapping and five years consecutive on a weapons charge.  Ultimately, he decided not to enter a plea, and the trial proceeded.
A co-defendant in the case, who was 15 at the time of the crime, talked about going to Stutts’ door with Inman and his brother, Lorenzo, and asking for water.  She directed them to an outside faucet, but they pretended not to know how to work the water, and she came out to help them.  It was then, the co-defendant said, that Lorenzo Inman hit her in the back of the head with a gun.  They asked her where the money was.  They looked around, didn’t see anything, and found the keys to the car.  The co-defendant said Damien Inman pulled the car around back, and they put her in the trunk.  They could hear her saying “Oh Lord” in the trunk, the co-defendant said, so Lorenzo Inman turned up the radio so they couldn’t hear her.
They eventually made their way to Admiral Drive off Bunker Hill Road in the Little Rock area.  They pulled out of the trunk.  She told them that they didn’t have to do this.  The co-defendant testified that Damien Inman shot her in the head twice and dragged her body into the woods.
The 15-year-old and Lorenzo Inman were captured the next day after a high speed chase that ended on Woodle Drive off Highway 30l South.  Damien Inman was taken into custody at Dillon High School.
A confidential informant said Damien Inman had a conversation with him at the Dillon County Detention Center.  He said Inman told him that he shot Stutts in the face first and when her head turned he shot her again.  He told him how they planned to put the crime off on the 15-year-old co-defendant.  Inman told the informant that killing Stutts was like killing a dog.
The jury in this trial returned a guilty verdict, and the judge sentenced him to two natural life sentences plus 80 years with the sentences to run consecutively.

Appeal
An appeal was heard in Inman’s case on March 4, 2014.  The opinion was filed on June 18, 2014.  Inman won a new trial due to a legal error during the December 2010 trial.  (More on this appeal can be found on www.thedillonherald.com on the article, “Damien Inman To Get New Trial.”)

Second Trial
Damien Inman’s new trial, the second trial, was held in June 2015.  This trial took place before Judge Paul Burch.  The jury in this trial found Inman guilty.
At this trial, when the Stutts family was taken out for a brief conference, an altercation occurred in which Inman struck a Dillon County Detention Center officer in the face and spat in the face of Deputy Solicitor Kernard Redmond and Sheriff Major Hulon.  The defendant’s sister crossed the bar and was arrested and held for contempt of court.  She was sentenced to 15 days.
Damien Inman was brought back into the courtroom with a spit guard and detention center attire.
Due to a recent ruling that resulted in Thursday’s hearing, Inman was only sentenced on some charges until the hearing could take place.
Inman was sentenced to 30 years for armed robbery, five years consecutive for conspiracy, and five years consecutive for possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.  
The remaining sentencing took place on Thursday.

Hearing
The hearing to sentence Damien Inman on the burglary-first degree and the murder charge was held on Thursday, October 29th in front of Judge Paul Burch.
Inman was brought in with a mask on and restraints.
Assistant Solicitor Shipp Daniel said due to the 2014 Supreme Court opinion (Aiken v. Byars), they were here for a specialized sentencing because Inman was under age 18 when the crime occurred, and they were seeking life in prison on the charges.
This is believed to be the first hearing of this type held in the state.
Under the Aiken v. Byars opinion, the following factors are to be considered:
1)  Chronological age and hallmark features of youth including immaturity, impetuosity, failure to appreciate risks and consequences.
2)  Family and home environment that surrounded the offender.
3)  Circumstances of the homicide offense, including extent of the offender’s participation in the conduct and how familial and peer pressures may have affected him.
4)  Incompetency’s associated with youth and inability to deal with police officers and prosecutors (including on a plea agreement) and incapacity to assist his attorney.
5)  Possibility of rehabilitation. (Aiken v. Byars)
Defense attorney Thurmond Brooker was the first call witnesses.
Dr. Kaustubh Joshi was the first witness called.  He did a court-ordered competency evaluation to see if Inman could stand trial.  His evaluation consisted of several hours of records review and a 50-minute interview.
During this testimony, it was revealed that Inman at the time of the school testing in 2009 had a fifth grade reading comprehension level, scored 45 out of 100 on a life preparation for jobs test, and scored below the mean on most of the categories on the intelligence scale.
Inman’s behavioral problems and alcohol and marijuana usage was discussed.
After lengthy testimony from Dr. Joshi, Inman took the stand.
The first question that Brooker asked was if Inman knew why they were here and what the purpose was.  Inman asked Brooker to repeat the question several times.  Inman asked Brooker if this is what they discussed in the holding cell.  Inman said to deal with the sentencing.
Inman said he was 17 years old at the time of the crime, and he was in ninth grade.  He was supposed to be in tenth grade, but he said he flunked.  He had spent a period of time in alternative school because he was expelled from regular school.
Brooker asked him if he was taking special education classes.  He said yes.  Brooker asked if he knew why. He said because he had a learning disability.
Brooker asked him if he had problems in his life.  Inman said yes.  Brooker asked him what kinds of problems he was having.  He said he had problems learning things.  Inman asked if he was having problems at home.  He said he was having problems as far as behavior.
Brooker asked him if he had mood swings with his family and if he remembered a fight with his brother and attempting to hurt him with a knife.  Inman said yes.  Brooker asked him if he knew why.  Inman said he got into a little scuffle.  He said he got the best of him so he had to pick the knife up.
Brooker asked him if he had discipline problems at school.  Inman said yes.
Brooker asked him why he acted out the way he did.  He said he had a lot going on with him as far as himself and learning.
Brooker asked him if he remembered the incident with him, his brother, and the juvenile.  Inman said yes.  He asked him why they were there.  Inman said he was misled and that he was threatened to commit a crime that he had no intention of doing.  He said he thought his life was in danger.
Brooker asked if this was his idea.  Inman said no.  Brooker asked if this was not his idea why didn’t he walk away.  Inman said his co-defendant had a gun, and if he had walked away, he would have shot him.
There were problems with the court reporter hearing Inman.  Inman asked if the face mask which kept slipping down could be removed.  He was told no because it was a law enforcement issue.
Inman was asked about his relationship with his father.
Brooker then asked about his alcohol and drug use.  Inman said he started drinking Mad Dog 20/20 at the age of 12.  He said he was smoking 1-1 1/2 ounces of marijuana a day or about seven a day.
Brooker asked him who introduced him to this.  Inman said a cousin.  He said he smoked every day.  Inman said for him it was a normal thing.  He liked how it made him feel.
After further questioning by Brooker, Brooker asked if Inman had thought at all about his future then.  He said no.  He was asked if he had had plans for the future.  Inman said with his capability of thinking, he didn’t think like that.
Brooker asked if he was influenced by the people around him.  He said yes.  He was asked if he looked up to his brother.  He said somewhat.  Brooker asked if he and his brother did the same things or hung out.  He said they smoked and drank about every day.
Brooker asked Inman if he did the shooting.  “No sir,”  Inman said.  He asked Inman if he was there when the shooting took place.  “Yes sir,”  Inman said.  Brooker asked Inman when he was arrested for the homicide had he ever been arrested by law enforcement before.  Inman said as far as going to jail, no.  Brooker asked if he understood how serious it was.  Inman said at that particular time, he didn’t.  Brooker asked him if he knew how serious it was now.  Inman said yes.
Brooker brought up an SCDC (S.C. Department of Corrections) report.  He said disciplinary problems were listed such as public masturbation and disruptive behavior.  He also mentioned problems while he was awaiting trial at the Dillon County Detention Center.
Brooker asked him why these things happened.  Brooker asked about the sexual part.  Inman said a man had urges.  Brooker asked if they were urges beyond his control.  He said yes.  Brooker asked him if he could control himself.  Inman said not really.
A few more questions were asked by Brooker, and he concluded his questioning.  The State asked no questions.
The State called Lt. Pam Johnson of the Dillon County Detention Center.  Johnson testified they had several run-ins with Inman when he was at the Detention Center.  She said they had moved him through every male pod at the detention center because he couldn’t get along with other people.
Johnson said they sent him to the Marion County Detention Center.  Circumstances caused him to be sent back to Dillon County.
Johnson said when he was sent back there were still problems.  A female officer filed an indecent exposure charge against him.
Assistant Solicitor Shipp Daniel asked Johnson if Inman was following people when he did these things.  Johnson said these were his choices.
Daniel also brought up the SCDC discipline report.
Daniel also pointed out through a question that Inman had only been brought for hours during the day because the detention center didn’t want to deal with him.
Brooker cross-examined Johnson, and the State had no further witnesses.
The family of Mary Alice Stutts came forward to make a statement.
Stutt’s daughter, Bobbie Lee, spoke on behalf of the family.  She said that they had been reading her mama’s Bible and that there were things that were marked and written that had brought the family some comfort and led them to believe that the Lord was preparing her for what was going to happen.
Lee read Genesis 9:6:
“Whoever sheds man’s blood
By man his blood shall be shed
For in the image of God
He made man.”
She said she didn’t understand why.  She said she felt like Inman should get the same thing as her mother although she knows that is not possible.  She said that one day the Lord will deal with that.
She then read Isaiah 55:6:
“Seek the Lord while He may be found.
Call upon Him while He is near.”
She looked back at Inman and said they all hope he had the call of the Lord.
Daniel made a few brief remarks and rested the State’s case.
Brooker then made closing remarks.  He said that the court should consider the five factors.  He said children are different from adults.  He said they are not as cognitively developed, immature, and make decisions without thinking.
Brooker said in August 2009, life-altering decisions were made affecting two families, involving life and death.  He said Inman made a decision no adult hopes he or she will have to make.  He said it was a child struggling with this decision – a child trying to rationalize decisions, law, the consequences, dealing with peer pressure.  He said Inman testified that he didn’t appreciate the seriousness of the action and never thought of the consequences or the pain to both families.
Brooker made more comments before concluding his presentation.
Daniel said without question the court decision says that the judge may decide life without parole is appropriate.
Daniel said all the Mad Dog, weed, and public masturbation in the world doesn’t excuse what happened.  He said Inman was a voluntary participant.  He said Inman knew enough to hide the bullets in his house and write a confession and that bad grammar and spelling doesn’t change that.
Daniel recognized law enforcement and the family.
Deputy Solicitor Kernard Redmond said he noticed in Inman’s testimony that there was never any expression of remorse.  He said instead he tried to minimize his role.  He said there was no excuse for what happened.
Judge Burch then began his comments.  He discussed the five factors:
#1  Chronological Age and hallmark features of youth:  
Judge Burch said that even though he had behavioral and educational issues as far back at age 12 and had the ability and still has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.
#2 Family and Home:
Judge Burch said he noted the testimony about drug and alcohol abuse. He said there appeared to be very little structure in the home environment. He noted that even at the time of conviction, the defendant’s sister got in trouble when she became involved in the fray in the courtroom. He said it was hard to put a finger where this went wrong.
#3 Circumstances of the homicide/Extent of the participation:
Judge Burch said the evidence showed that Inman was a leader in the execution of the crime. Judge Burch said in the 24 years of doing this job that this one ranks in the top ten as far as cruelty and in humanness and lack of regard for human life. He noted testimony that Inman said he shot the victim like a dog and testimony that he apparently had the desire to rape the victim before he executed her. He said he would note the defendant’s statement which conflicted with the evidence presented at trial.
#4 Incompetency:
Judge Burch said he finds no problem with what was presented concerning his competency to stand trial. He observed he was able to cooperate and assist.
#5 Possibility of Rehabilitation:
Judge Burch said that the court finds that the possibility of rehabilitation is very unlikely. He said Inman has been out of control since age twelve until present. He said he cannot follow the rules of society. He said the cruelty of the crime and violence in the presence of everyone in the courtroom tells him that he should be permanently confined to the Department of Corrections. He said his self-discipline and self-control problems have continued into prison at age 23. He said he requires a structured facility for him to remain in for the rest of his life because he would not be able to function within the law.
On burglary first degree, Judge Burch sentenced Inman to natural life. On the murder charge, Judge Burch sentenced Inman to natural life. He has ten days from sentencing to appeal.
As he did at the time of his conviction at the second trial, Inman started to jump up; however, this time law enforcement was waiting for him, one of them remarking, “Not today, buddy.” The officers then brought Inman under control as the courtroom was cleared bringing court to an abrupt end.
On the sentencing, Daniel said, “We are pleased the judge granted our request to sentence this defendant to life in prison. Given the heinous, senseless nature of this crime anything short of life in prison would have been inadequate. We are confident the court considered all appropriate factors in reaching its decision and on behalf of the family of Mrs. Stutts, we are thankful.”