State v. Bendoly, 20930

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Citation: 273 S.C. 47,254 S.E.2d 287
• Decision Date: 10 April 1979
• Docket Number: No. 20930,20930
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent-Appellant, v. Avram BENDOLY, Alexander Okner and Aleksey Vainbrum, Appellants-Respondents.

Page 287

254 S.E.2d 287 273 S.C. 47 The STATE, Respondent-Appellant,
v.
Avram BENDOLY, Alexander Okner and Aleksey Vainbrum,
Appellants-Respondents. No. 20930. Supreme Court of South Carolina. April 10, 1979.

Page 288

[273 S.C. 48] Morris D. Rosen and Robert N. Rosen, Charleston, for appellant-respondent Bendoly.

Cleveland Stevens, Conway, for appellants-respondents Vainbrum et al.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol. H. G. Charles, Conway, for respondent-appellant.

GREGORY, Justice:

Appellants Avram Bendoly, Alexander Okner and Aleksey Vainbrum were convicted of conspiracy and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and each was sentenced to live imprisonment for conspiracy and ten years imprisonment for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. We reverse.

[273 S.C. 49] First, appellants contend the trial judge erred by declaring a witness for the State hostile and permitting the State to impeach the witness.

The rule in this State is that a party cannot impeach his own witness except when the witness proves hostile or recalcitrant. State v. Nelson,192 S.C. 422, 7 S.E.2d 72 (1940). A witness may not be declared hostile except upon a showing of both actual surprise, State v. Harvey, 253 S.C. 328, 170 S.E.2d 657 (1969), and harm, State v. Richburg, 250 S.C. 451, 158 S.E.2d 769 (1968).

Here, the trial judge declared the state's witness hostile, over objection of counsel for appellants, after finding that the testimony of the witness at trial contradicted the witness's testimony at an earlier preliminary hearing. The State introduced no evidence of surprise, and the trial judge made no finding of surprise. In the absence of a showing of actual surprise by the State, the trial judge committed error by declaring the State's witness hostile. See: State v. Ellefson, 266 S.C. 494, 224 S.E.2d 666 (1976); State v. Harvey, supra; Gilfillan v. Gilfillan, 242 S.C. 258, 130 S.E.2d 578 (1963); State v. Trull, 232 S.C. 250, 101 S.E.2d 648 (1958); State v. Nelson, supra.

Since the witness's prior sworn testimony was inculpatory of appellants, the introduction of the testimony by the State was prejudicial and requires a reversal of appellants' convictions.

Second, appellants contend the trial judge erred by refusing to allow them to testify regarding their good faith belief in the legality of their actions. Appellants desired to explain to the jury that at the time they carried...