State v. Hayes, 20849

Citation272 S.C. 256,250 S.E.2d 342
Decision Date10 January 1979
Docket NumberNo. 20849,20849
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Theodore Gilbert HAYES and Richard T. Hayes, Appellants.

Hyman, Morgan, Brown, Saleeby, Jeffords & Rushton, Florence, for appellants.

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, for respondent.

RHODES, Justice.

The appellants are brothers who were charged with assault and battery with intent to kill. The crime resulted in serious injury to a motorist who was struck by a brick thrown from an overpass onto Interstate Highway 95.

The charges against Richard T. Hayes, a juvenile, were heard before the Family Court, resulting in a determination of his guilt. Thereafter, Theodore Gilbert Hayes was tried by jury in the Court of General Sessions and convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill. Although these cases arise from different jurisdictions, the State and the defendants have agreed to consolidate them for purposes of this appeal. We affirm.

Following the juvenile proceeding of Richard Hayes and just prior to the trial of Theodore Hayes, the defense produced an affidavit from one Jimmy Douglas Vaught, Jr., which was to the following effect: (1) That approximately one month after the crime was committed, one Steve Page and Robert Wallace personally admitted to him that they had thrown the brick which caused the injury; (2) that Steve Page had also made this same confession to his sister (Robin Renee Vaught); and (3) that subsequent to the crime, both Page and Wallace had moved outside the state. Based on the affidavit, counsel for appellant Richard Hayes made a motion for a new trial on the ground of after discovered evidence. This motion was later denied.

At the trial of the elder Hayes brother in General Sessions Court, the defense produced Jimmy and Renee Vaught as witnesses and proffered their testimony relative to the admissions of Page and Wallace. The court sustained the State's objection to the admissibility of this testimony.

The pivotal issue in these two cases is whether the testimony of the Vaughts is admissible as a declaration against the penal interests of Page and Wallace. The lower court held it inadmissible on the ground that South Carolina has not recognized such declarations as an exception to the hearsay rule in criminal cases. We agree.

The majority of jurisdictions support the rule that in criminal cases, evidence of the confession of a stranger that he perpetrated the offense is not admissible as substantive evidence to exculpate a defendant. C. McCormick, Evidence § 278, at 673 (2d ed. 1972). J. Dreher, A Guide to Evidence Law in South Carolina, 73 (1967).

While appellants argue on authority of McClain v. Anderson Free Press, 232 S.C. 448, 102 S.E.2d 750 (1958), and Coleman and Lipscomb v. Frazier, 4 Rich. 146, 53 Am.Dec. 727 (1850), that our Court has relaxed this traditional rule, we find no sanction for this reliance. As both cases involved civil actions, we do not find them controlling for purposes of this appeal.

We are aware of no South Carolina authority allowing admission of declarations against penal interest at a criminal trial. We, therefore, adhere to the majority view, concluding that the testimony of the Vaughts was properly excluded in the trial of Theodore Hayes.

In reaching this determination, we likewise dispose of the contention of Richard Hayes for a new trial. This contention is grounded solely upon the above discussed testimony . The trial judge found that the substance of the Vaughts' testimony was not credible and inadmissible under South Carolina law. Under these circumstances, we conclude that denial of appellant's motion for a new trial was proper. State v. Pierce, 263 S.C. 23, 207 S.E.2d 414 (1974).

Other exceptions are taken by Theodore Hayes to his jury trial. Under authority of State v. Atterbury, 134 S.C. 392, 133 S.E. 101 (1926...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Glenn
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 8 Abril 1997
    ...wrong."). The evidence was likewise sufficient to support a finding that Glenn acted with the requisite intent. In State v. Hayes, 272 S.C. 256, 250 S.E.2d 342 (1979), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Doctor, 306 S.C. 527, 413 S.E.2d 36 (1992), the defendant was convicted of a......
  • State v. Doctor
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 21 Noviembre 1991
    ...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. Al......
  • State v. Watkins, 27334.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • 4 Diciembre 2013
    ...expressed opinion that defendant was guilty when sentencing defendant, must recuse at retrial upon objection) with State v. Hayes, 272 S.C. 256, 250 S.E.2d 342 (1979) (no recusal necessary where trial judge had already adjudicated defendant's younger brother delinquent based upon the same o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT