City of Rock Hill v. Morgan
Decision Date | 07 August 2019 |
Docket Number | Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-282,Appellate Case No. 2017-001530 |
Parties | City of Rock Hill, Appellant, v. Nathan Morgan, Respondent. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Appeal From York County
S. Jackson Kimball, III, Special Circuit Court Judge
REVERSED
Christopher Edward Barton, of Rock Hill, for Appellant.
Charles Harold Rudnick, of Rudnick & Rudnick, of Aiken, for Respondent.
Nathan Morgan was tried before a jury in municipal court and was convicted of assault and battery in the third degree. Morgan appealed his conviction to the circuit court, which reversed and remanded the matter for a new trial upon finding the trial court improperly admitted evidence of Morgan's remote convictions. The City of Rock Hill (the City) now appeals the circuit court's order. We reverse and reinstate Morgan's conviction.
First, we find the circuit court erred in holding the trial court's failure to conduct a Rule 609, SCRE balancing test was an abuse of discretion. The balancing test normally necessitated by Rule 609 is not required once a party opens the door to what may be otherwise improper criminal conviction evidence. Our courts recognize, though evidence may be otherwise inadmissible under our rules and law, when a defendant opens the door that evidence becomes admissible. See State v. Page, 378 S.C. 476, 482, 663 S.E.2d 357, 360 (Ct. App. 2008) (); State v. Stroman, 281 S.C. 508, 513, 316 S.E.2d 395, 399 (1984) . To hold otherwise, as the circuit court did, would eviscerate the "open the door" doctrine. Further, our law is specifically clear that when a defendant opens the door to the admission of his prior convictions, the court need not determine whether the convictions would be admissible under Rule 609, SCRE. See State v. Dunlap, 353 S.C. 539, 541-42, 579 S.E.2d 318, 319 (2003) (); State v. Shands, 424 S.C. 106, 123-24, 817 S.E.2d 524, 533 (Ct. App. 2018) ( ). Accordingly, we hold the circuit court committed an error of law in concluding the trial court was required to conduct a balancing test under Rule 609 after the trial court found Morgan opened the door to admission of his convictions. See Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 341, 713 S.E.2d 278, 282 (2011) ( ).
Further, assuming arguendo, as Morgan contends, the circuit court implicitly found Morgan did not open the door to his prior convictions with his statement "I don't steal," we likewise find error. "In criminal appeals from a municipal court, the circuit court does not conduct a de novo review; rather, it reviews the case for preserved errors raised to it by an appropriate exception." Id. at 341, 713 S.E.2d at282 (quoting City of Cayce v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 391 S.C. 395, 399, 706 S.E.2d 6, 8 (2011)). In such appeals, "the circuit court is bound by the municipal court's findings of fact if there is any evidence in the record which reasonably supports them." City of Greer v. Humble, 402 S.C. 609, 613, 742 S.E.2d 15, 17 (Ct. App. 2013). "Whether a person opens the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence during the course of a trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge." Page, 378 S.C. at 483, 663 S.E.2d at 360. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support." State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 16, 732 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) (quoting State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473, 477-78, 716 S.E.2d 91, 93 (2011)). Although the circuit court placed great emphasis on its perception that Morgan's statement was made in the present tense, it acknowledged that one possible construction of the statement was that Morgan was saying he "[does not] steal[,] period," and not that he was "not stealing [at that moment]." Thus, by the circuit court's own admission, there was evidence to support the trial court's determination on this matter. Further, we agree with the City that such statement by Morgan placed his character at issue. See State v. Taylor, 333 S.C. 159, 174, 508 S.E.2d 870, 877-78 (1998) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial