State v. Doctor, No. 23550
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | TOAL; GREGORY |
| Citation | 413 S.E.2d 36,306 S.C. 527 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Willie Corda DOCTOR, Appellant. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23550 |
Page 36
v.
Willie Corda DOCTOR, Appellant.
Decided Jan. 6, 1992.
Page 37
[306 S.C. 528] John D. Delgado, Columbia, for appellant.
Attorney General T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Miller W. Shealy, Jr., and Sol. James C. Anders, Columbia, for respondent.
TOAL, Justice:
The appellant, Doctor, was convicted of armed robbery. The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in excluding out-of-court statements made against the declarant's penal interest offered to exculpate the accused. We reverse.
At trial the victim and sole eyewitness testified Doctor, accompanied by two other boys, approached him in a shopping mall parking lot and demanded his car keys. According to the victim, when he refused Doctor pointed a gun to his head. The victim then surrendered his keys and the three boys drove away in the car. The car was later found stripped and abandoned.
The defense called a sixteen year old boy to testify. He admitted that it was he and two other minors who committed the theft. The testifying minor claimed Doctor was not involved. He further testified that the three boys found the keys on the floorboard and no gun was used. The minor had previously plead nolo contendere to the crime in Family Court.
[306 S.C. 529] The other minors implicated by the testifying minor were called to the stand. However, both asserted their Fifth Amendment privilege as advised by their appointed counsel. Doctor's attorney then attempted to introduce the testimony of his investigator, Jones. According to the proffer, Jones would have testified that both the nontestifying minors, separately and in the presence of family members, confessed to the theft of the automobile. The proffer further indicated that the confessions were identical in detail to the in-court confession of the testifying minor. This testimony was held to be inadmissible as hearsay under existing South Carolina evidence law. State v. Hayes, 272 S.C. 256, 250 S.E.2d 342 (1979).
Three additional witnesses testified they saw the three boys in the car with the stereo intact on the day of the theft. All three witnesses denied seeing Doctor in the car that day.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Although the State conceded at oral arguments the investigator's testimony was admissible, we take this opportunity to clarify the law as it pertains to the hearsay exception of statements against penal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Staten, No. 3955.
...the determination of whether a third party committed the crime charged instead of the defendant in a criminal case. See State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992). An abuse of discretion standard is applied to a trial judge's ruling on the issue of whether a statement is admissible......
-
State v. Hamilton, No. 3317.
...procedure in accordance with Rule 614 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, supplemented by South Carolina common law); State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992)(following Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)); State v. Sarvis, 317 S.C. 102, 106, 450 S.E.2d 606, 608 (Ct.App.1994)(statin......
-
State v. Staten, 2005-UP-163
...the determination of whether a third party committed the crime charged instead of the defendant in a criminal case. See State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992). An abuse of discretion standard is applied to a trial judge's ruling on the issue of whether a statement is admissible......
-
State v. Young, Opinion No. 5501.
...our courts have treated this strand of hearsay, which was altogether barred from admission in criminal trials until State v. Doctor , 306 S.C. 527, 529–30, 413 S.E.2d 36, 38 (1992), and the adoption of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence in 1995. Before that, the common law only tolerated ......
-
State v. Staten, No. 3955.
...the determination of whether a third party committed the crime charged instead of the defendant in a criminal case. See State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992). An abuse of discretion standard is applied to a trial judge's ruling on the issue of whether a statement is admissible......
-
State v. Hamilton, No. 3317.
...procedure in accordance with Rule 614 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, supplemented by South Carolina common law); State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992)(following Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3)); State v. Sarvis, 317 S.C. 102, 106, 450 S.E.2d 606, 608 (Ct.App.1994)(statin......
-
State v. Staten, 2005-UP-163
...the determination of whether a third party committed the crime charged instead of the defendant in a criminal case. See State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992). An abuse of discretion standard is applied to a trial judge's ruling on the issue of whether a statement is admissible......
-
State v. Young, Opinion No. 5501.
...our courts have treated this strand of hearsay, which was altogether barred from admission in criminal trials until State v. Doctor , 306 S.C. 527, 529–30, 413 S.E.2d 36, 38 (1992), and the adoption of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence in 1995. Before that, the common law only tolerated ......