State v. Cotton
| Decision Date | 06 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2017-002402,Opinion No. 27965 |
| Citation | 430 S.C. 112,844 S.E.2d 56 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Damyon COTTON, Petitioner. |
Lesley A. Firestone, of Moore & Van Allen, PLLC, of Charleston; and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek and Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, both of Columbia, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch Jr., both of Columbia; and Solicitor William B. Rogers Jr., of Bennettsville, for Respondent.
In a trio of cases, this Court has been asked to reconsider the reach of the common scheme or plan exception to Rule 404(b), SCRE, particularly as it pertains to criminal sexual conduct cases and our decision in State v. Wallace , 384 S.C. 428, 683 S.E.2d 275 (2009). Today, in the first of the three opinions, we overrule Wallace and clarify the requirements to satisfy the common scheme or plan exception. See State v. Perry , 430 S.C. 24, 842 S.E.2d 654 (2020). In the second of the three opinions, using the new Perry framework, we affirm a pastor's criminal sexual conduct conviction in a case where the abuse of the victims was done in a method so unusual as to be unique. See State v. Durant , 430 S.C. 98, 844 S.E.2d 49 (2020) ; see also State v. McClellan , 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984). Here, in the third of the three opinions, we reconfirm the continued viability of the common scheme or plan exception.
In this case, Petitioner met a young woman (the victim) online, picked her up in his car to take her on a date, and quickly became aggressive, forcing her to perform oral sex on him in the car. He then drove to a secluded location in the woods, threatened to shoot the victim, raped her outside the car, and drove her home. Petitioner was indicted for kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct in the first degree.
Over Petitioner's objections at trial, and pursuant to the common scheme or plan exception to Rule 404(b), SCRE, the trial court admitted testimony from a second victim (another young woman) who had suffered an essentially identical assault at Petitioner's hands. According to the second victim, Petitioner met her online, picked her up in his car to take her on a date, and quickly became aggressive, hitting her and forcing her to perform oral sex on him in the car. He then drove to a secluded location in the woods, raped the second victim outside the car, and drove her home. Notably, during the assaults, both victims attempted to dissuade Petitioner from raping them by offering excuses as to why intercourse with them would be undesirable: one claimed she was menstruating, and the other claimed she was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perry
...common scheme or plan exception with our opinions today in State v. Durant , 430 S.C. 98, 844 S.E.2d 49 (2020), and State v. Cotton , 430 S.C. 112, 844 S.E.2d 56 (2020).In Durant , the defendant was charged with CSC in the second degree for sexually assaulting a young girl at the church whe......
-
State v. Morales
...to affirm in both instances. Perry discusses these two cases— State v. Durant , 430 S.C. 98, 844 S.E.2d 49 (2020), and State v. Cotton , 430 S.C. 112, 844 S.E.2d 56 (2020) —as examples of how courts should apply the "logical connection" analysis.In Durant , the defendant was charged with CS......