Here lies a sad tale told in a January 12th unanimous SCOTSI decision in the unsuccessful appeal of convicted murderer Amanda Dawn Carmack. Amanda will continue to serve life without parole (LWOP) for the murder of her stepdaughter S.C., aged ten (10) years. The appeal went directly to the SCOTSI. See Appellate Rule 4A(1)(a).
The now-dissolved marriage of Amanda and Kevin Carmack came in October of 2017. In addition to the married couple the new blended family consisted of Amanda’s three children, “three nieces and nephews,”¹ and Kevin’s daughter S.C. I will call her “Sally.”
Amanda homeschooled the seven children while Kevin worked as an over-the-road truck driver. There was a “strained” relationship between Amanda and Sally. It was August 31, 2019 when Kevin received a text message from Amanda advising that Sally had taken a charm bracelet that belonged to her stepsister (a daughter to Amanda). Sally allegedly disassembled the bracelet and gave the “pieces” (individual charms?) to other children in the home. A telephone conversation followed. Perceiving how upset Amanda was, Kevin urged her to “leave it alone” until his expected return home the next morning.
Later that same day Amanda texted Kevin that “we have a problem.” Amanda (falsely) claimed that Sally had run away from home, as she had done previously. As it turned out, Sally’s lifeless body had been: dismembered; stuffed into garbage bags; and stashed into a storage shed. Amanda eventually admitted to killing Sally by strangulation. Amanda further said she was “so mad” at Sally.
Charges against Amanda included murder. Amanda initially asserted (but later withdrew) notice of defense of mental illness or defect.
At trial the defense conceded that Amanda killed Sally but maintained that she did so under “sudden heat.” Sudden heat is described here as a “mitigating factor” that reduces the act of murder to voluntary manslaughter. The jury declined the invitation to convict for voluntary manslaughter and instead convicted Amanda of murder.
Amanda’s appeal (of her conviction) asserted an insufficiency of evidence to rebut her contention of sudden heat. The State’s response was that there was evidence to negate sudden heat in that Sally’s disciplinary issues were not so provocative and that Amanda’s homicidal response was delayed over a “cooling off” period that dissipated any “sudden heat” excuse for the killing.
In affirming Amanda’s conviction the SCOTSI Opinion by Justice Massa questioned whether the jury should have had an option to convict on voluntary manslaughter upon the evidence at trial. Justice Massa barely declined to hold that, as a matter of law, a child cannot provoke an adult to sudden heat. To hold so “as a matter of law” would be unwise to the extreme.
We all know an Amanda, it’s just that most of the Amanda’s we know aren’t tethered to a “Sally” stepdaughter in a new blended family where: Sally’s dad is mostly away from home; Sally hates her stepmom; and the stepmom hates Sally.
Amanda Dawn Carmack ran a large household. She homeschooled seven children. Had I known her, she would likely have earned my respect. But for a disobedient, contentious stepdaughter in the house and the over-the-road dad, Amanda would probably be living “happily ever after” rather than spending the rest of her life behind bars.
___________
¹ The SCOTSI Opinion refers to “three nieces and nephews.” Given the number three total there cannot be nieces (plural) and nephews (plural).
Leave a Reply