State v. Hart

• Citation: 412 S.E.2d 380,306 S.C. 344
• Decision Date: 21 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. 23517,23517
• Parties: STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. John Henry HART, Petitioner. . Heard
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 380

412 S.E.2d 380

306 S.C. 344

STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. John Henry HART, Petitioner.

No. 23517.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Oct. 21, 1991.

Decided Dec. 2, 1991.

Asst. Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for petitioner.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Sol. Larry F. Grant, York, for respondent.

GREGORY, Chief Justice:

This case is before us on a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision reported at 304 S.C. 99, 403 S.E.2d 144 (1991). We reverse and remand for a new trial.

Petitioner was convicted of armed robbery and unlawful use of a firearm. At trial, the only contested issue was identity. The victim identified petitioner from a photo lineup and also gave an in-court identification. Evidence at trial, however, indicated the physical description of the suspect given by the victim immediately following the robbery did not match petitioner's physical characteristics in certain particulars. Petitioner moved to be allowed to exhibit his physical characteristics to the jury. The trial judge ruled petitioner could do so only if he subjected himself to cross-examination by the State. Petitioner declined to be cross-examined and did not testify at trial.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held the trial judge erred in conditioning petitioner's exhibition of his physical characteristics upon cross-examination but found the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because "the exhibition by [petitioner] of his physical characteristics would have been cumulative to other evidence and it would have been of limited importance relative to other evidence supporting his conviction." Petitioner contends the Court of Appeals erred in finding this error harmless.

We note that the Court of Appeals correctly concluded the trial judge's ruling was erroneous. It is well-settled that the State's exhibition of a defendant's physical characteristics does not implicate the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination because such an exhibition is not testimonial. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). Since constitutional due process ensures reciprocity as essential to a fair trial, Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 93 S.Ct. 2208, 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973), a physical exhibition when offered by the defendant cannot constitute a waiver of his right against self-incrimination. See State v. Martin, 519 So.2d 87 (La.1988); State v. Norris, 577 S.W.2d 941 (Mo.1979). The exhibition of physical characteristics, like any other evidence, however, is subject to challenge by the State on the ground that a proper foundation has not been laid, i.e. that there is no evidence before the jury that the physical characteristics proffered were present at the time the offense was committed.

Having observed that the Court of Appeals correctly found error, however, we differ with the result reached under its harmless error analysis. The United States Supreme Court has set forth a test to assess whether the exclusion of evidence in violation of a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses constitutes harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 109 S.Ct. 480, 102 L.Ed.2d 513 (1988); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). We conclude by analogy this same test is applicable to assess harmless error where relevant evidence has been excluded in violation of the defendant's constitutional right to due process.

The correct inquiry is whether, assuming that the damaging potential of the [proffered evidence] were fully realized, a reviewing court might nonetheless say that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Van Arsdall, 106 S.Ct. at 1438.

Further, the reviewing court must consider the importance of the particular evidence contradicted by the defendant's proffered evidence, including whether it is merely cumulative to other evidence or whether it is corroborated or contradicted by other evidence introduced at trial. The reviewing court must also assess the overall strength of the prosecution's case. See Olden, 109 S.Ct. at 483-84; Van Arsdall, 106 S.Ct. at 1438.

In this case, the victim's identification of petitioner was crucial to the State's case. Not only was this...