State v. Hamlet, 22808
| Citation | 362 S.E.2d 644,294 S.C. 77 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22808,22808 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Timothy HAMLET, Appellant. . Heard |
Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for respondent.
Appellant (Hamlet) was convicted of first degree burglary and grand larceny and given concurrent sentences of twenty-five years and ten years, respectively. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
On the evening of Monday, November 11, 1985, James Feagin was fox hunting in the vicinity of a house owned by Flora Kennedy. Mrs. Kennedy, who stayed in the house only on weekends, was at her residence in Columbia.
Feagin was parked on the side of the road just beyond the house. When he turned on his headlights, he saw one man getting out of a nearby ditch and another heading into an adjoining thicket. He then saw them walk out of the woods to a Ford Maverick which had just pulled up at an abandoned store. Feagin heard three people arguing in front of the store.
Shortly thereafter, Feagin saw the Maverick leave the store. For the next thirty minutes he watched it drive slowly up and down the road in front of Mrs. Kennedy's house. Becoming suspicious, he radioed for the other fox hunters. Upon their arrival, the hunters found a flashlight, jewelry, and coins in the ditch. They then called the police.
Witnesses later observed Hamlet, Alphonso Pearson and a third individual riding in the Maverick. When arrested, Pearson gave the police a statement implicating Hamlet in the break-in.
The sole issue we address is whether the trial judge erred in allowing the State to impeach its own witness.
Hamlet and Pearson were indicted for grand larceny and first degree burglary. During their joint trial, Pearson pled guilty to the charges.
The State later called Pearson as a witness. When Pearson testified that Hamlet had not participated in the crimes, he was interrogated concerning a written statement he had given the police. Hamlet's attorney objected to the State's impeachment of its own witness, arguing that the witness had not been shown to be hostile. After the objection was overruled, the solicitor then elicited from Pearson that he had told the police that Hamlet broke into the house and stole jewelry.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hawkins, 1899
...general rule, a party offering a witness vouches for his truthfulness and cannot cross-examine or impeach the witness. State v. Hamlet, 294 S.C. 77, 362 S.E.2d 644 (1987). However, a party may impeach his own witness if the witness is declared hostile. A witness should not be declared hosti......
-
State v. Pfirman
...first declared hostile upon a showing of actual surprise and harm. State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 377 S.E.2d 581 (1989); State v. Hamlet, 294 S.C. 77, 362 S.E.2d 644 (1987). Undeniably, the State could not have shown surprise in view of the solicitor's statement to the court anticipating Goff......
-
State v. Bailey
...may not be declared hostile except upon a showing of both actual surprise and harm. 254 S.E.2d at 288. Recently, in State v. Hamlet, 294 S.C. 77, 362 S.E.2d 644 (1987), this Court reversed the trial court, holding that absent a showing of surprise by the State, or finding of surprise by the......
-
State v. Anderson
...1 As a general rule, the party offering a witness must vouch for his veracity and cannot cross-examine or impeach him. State v. Hamlet, 294 S.C. 77, 362 S.E.2d 644 (1987). However, a party may impeach its own witness if the witness is first declared hostile. State v. Bendoly, 273 S.C. 47, 2......