State v. Dunlap, 25616.
Decision Date | 07 April 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 25616.,25616. |
Citation | 579 S.E.2d 318,353 S.C. 539 |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Laterrance Ramone DUNLAP, Petitioner. |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Stephen D. Schusterman, of Rock Hill, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Thomas E. Pope, of York, for Respondent.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that evidence of petitioner's prior drug convictions were properly admitted at trial. State v. Dunlap, 346 S.C. 312, 550 S.E.2d 889 (Ct.App.2001). We affirm as modified, finding that Judge Shuler's concurring opinion properly analyzed this case as one involving `door opening' or `invited response.'
Petitioner was convicted of distributing crack cocaine in 1999 and received a nineteen-year sentence and was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine. His prior record included the following convictions:
During petitioner's attorney's opening statement, counsel acknowledged that petitioner "had been in trouble with the law from the time he was fifteen years old," was "a young man addicted to drugs," and
Whether petitioner's prior drug convictions were properly admitted?
While it is technically accurate that petitioner had never been convicted of distributing crack cocaine, an examination of his record demonstrates that he had attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to position himself as a drug dealer. The 1994 conviction for distributing an imitation substance came about when petitioner sold a chunk of white chocolate for $800, representing it to be crack cocaine. In 1997, petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute.
The opening statement created the impression that petitioner had no prior connection to the sale of narcotics. In reality, petitioner was not a mere drug user, but an individual who sought to `elevate' his status to that of a drug dealer. That he was unsuccessful in actually selling anyone illegal drugs does not alter the fact that he tried. We therefore agree with Judge Shuler that petitioner's counsel opened the door to the introduction of evidence rebutting the contention that petitioner was merely an addict. Compare Edmond v. State, 341 S.C. 340, 534 S.E.2d 682 (2000) fn. 3 (counsel can open door to evidence of post-arrest silence by asserting government never gave defendant opportunity to tell his story) ; cf. State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 535 S.E.2d 420 (2000) ( ).
Because we find that counsel opened the door to the admission of petitioner's prior drug record, we need not reach the issue whether these convictions were admissible to impeach petitioner's credibility under Rule 609, SCACR. We take this opportunity, however, to remind the bench and bar that violations of narcotics laws are generally not probative of truthfulness. State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 538 S.E.2d 248 (2000) (applying Rule 608, SCRE). This relative lack of probative value should figure prominently in the weighing of prejudice, pursuant to Rule 609(a)(1), when determining...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Rice
...defendant opened the door by cross-examining expert about other cases in which she did not believe victim); State v. Dunlap, 353 S.C. 539, 541, 579 S.E.2d 318, 319 (2003) (holding defense counsel's opening statement "opened the door to the introduction of evidence rebutting the contention t......
-
State v. Young
...to DUI suspects in two other counties. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion. Id. at 134, 512 S.E.2d at 122. In State v. Dunlap, 353 S.C. 539, 579 S.E.2d 318 (2003), Dunlap was convicted for distribution of crack cocaine. During opening statements, counsel for Dunlap professed that th......
-
State v. Ostrowski
...statement that the methamphetamine belonged to another specific person."18 We disagree.The State relies heavily on State v. Dunlap , 353 S.C. 539, 579 S.E.2d 318 (2003) to advance the proposition that "the State was entitled to introduce Appellant's text messages to prove he was not a mere ......
-
State v. Page
...defendant opened the door by cross-examining expert about other cases in which she did not believe victim); State v. Dunlap, 353 S.C. 539, 541, 579 S.E.2d 318, 319 (2003) (holding defense counsel's opening statement "opened the door to the introduction of evidence rebutting the contention t......