State v. Haygood, Appellate Case No. 2014–001985.

• Citation: 776 S.E.2d 262,413 S.C. 239
• Decision Date: 12 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 27560.,Appellate Case No. 2014–001985.,27560.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Parties: The STATE, Petitioner, v. Henry HAYGOOD, Respondent.

413 S.C. 239

776 S.E.2d 262

The STATE, Petitioner

v.Henry HAYGOOD, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2014–001985.

No. 27560.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Submitted Feb. 3, 2015.

Refiled Aug. 12, 2015.

Attorney General, Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General, John Croom Hunter, both of Columbia, for petitioner.

Assistant Public Defender, Breen Richard Stevens, of Orangeburg, for respondent.

ORDER

After careful consideration of the petition for rehearing, the Court is unable to discover that any material fact or principle of law has been either overlooked or disregarded, and hence, there is no basis for granting a rehearing. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is denied. However, we hereby withdraw our original opinion in this matter and substitute it with Opinion No. 27560.

/s/Jean H. Toal , C.J.

/s/Costa M. Pleicones , J.

/s/Donald W. Beatty , J.

/s/John W. Kittredge , J.

/s/Kaye G. Hearn , J.

PER CURIAM:

The State seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in State v. Haygood, 409 S.C. 420, 762 S.E.2d 69 (Ct.App.2014). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, affirm the Court of Appeals' opinion in part, vacate in part, and remand for a new trial.

The Court of Appeals found the circuit court erred in finding the testimonial statements made by the victim to the police did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because the statements fell within the excited utterance exception to hearsay. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (“Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law.... Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.”).

The Court of Appeals also found the admission of the victim's statements in this case violated the Confrontation Clause because the victim's statements were testimonial, there was no evidence the victim was unavailable to testify, and there was no evidence respondent had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim. We find the Court of Appeals erred in addressing whether the facts of this case demonstrated respondent's rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated because the record before the court lacked the facts necessary to make such a determination. For unexplained reasons, the recording of the proceeding before the magistrate's court was unavailable, and the only facts available to...