State v. Makins
| Decision Date | 04 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2016-002495,Opinion No. 5683 |
| Citation | 835 S.E.2d 532,428 S.C. 440 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Ontario Stefon Patrick MAKINS, Appellant. |
Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of Greenville; for Respondent.
Ontario Stefon Patrick Makins appeals his conviction for third degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor, arguing the circuit court erred in (1) refusing to allow Makins to cross-examine the victim (Victim) about her prior allegations of sexual abuse and (2) allowing a therapist to essentially vouch for Victim's credibility by testifying both as a fact witness regarding Victim's allegations of abuse and an expert witness on child sexual abuse trauma. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
In March 2015, training specialists from the Julie Valentine Center1 visited Mitchell Road Elementary School in Greenville to discuss safety and "inappropriate touching" with students. Approximately two weeks later, on March 20, 2015, Victim reported to her teacher, Mary Kroske (Teacher), that she had been sexually abused. Teacher reported Victim's disclosure to the school's guidance counselor.
Investigator David Picone of the Greenville County Sheriff's Department (GCSD), responded to the school to investigate Victim's report. Picone spoke with Victim's mother, Teacher, and Victim about Victim's disclosure. Victim reported to Investigator Picone that she was abused by her sister's boyfriend, Makins, at the home where the couple lived with their children; Victim stated the abuse began when she was five years old. Investigator Picone testified he did not question Victim, who was eight at the time, about the details of the alleged abuse. Instead, he followed GCSD's procedure for referring children under the age of twelve to the Julie Valentine Center for a forensic interview.
On March 23, 2015, Investigator Picone interviewed Makins and informed him of Victim's allegations of sexual abuse, which Makins denied. While at the GCSD, Makins also met with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) to discuss DSS's safety plan.
On April 21, 2015, Christine Carlberg of the Julie Valentine Center conducted a forensic interview with Victim.2 After viewing the forensic interview, Investigator Picone determined probable cause existed to arrest Makins. On August 23, 2016, the grand jury indicted Makins for CSC with a minor, first degree; lewd act upon a minor; and CSC with a minor, third degree.
At Makins's trial, Victim testified that on more than one occasion, Makins asked her to perform oral sex, touched her inappropriately, and showed her a sexually-oriented website on his cell phone.3 Victim admitted she lied to the police when she reported Makins threatened to kill her if she disclosed the abuse. Although the jury found Makins "not guilty" on the CSC (first) and lewd act indictments, it found him guilty of CSC (third) with a minor. The circuit court sentenced Makins to ten years' imprisonment.
State v. Chavis , 412 S.C. 101, 106, 771 S.E.2d 336, 338 (2015) (citation omitted).
Makins argues the circuit court erred in allowing therapist Kristin Rich to indirectly bolster Victim's testimony by permitting Rich to testify as both an expert in child sexual abuse trauma and as a fact witness regarding Victim's allegations of sexual abuse. We agree.
State v. White , 361 S.C. 407, 414-15, 605 S.E.2d 540, 544 (2004). While our supreme court has recognized an expertise in child abuse assessment, it has cautioned that "allow[ing] the person who examined the child to testify to the characteristics of victims runs the risk that the expert will vouch for the alleged victim's credibility." State v. Anderson , 413 S.C. 212, 218-19, 776 S.E.2d 76, 79 (2015). The better practice "is not to have the individual who examined the alleged victim testify, but rather to call an independent expert." Id. at 218, 776 S.E.2d at 79.
"The assessment of witness credibility is within the exclusive province of the jury." State v. McKerley , 397 S.C. 461, 464, 725 S.E.2d 139, 141 (Ct. App. 2012). "[A] witness may not give an opinion for the purpose of conveying to the jury—directly or indirectly—that she believes the victim." Briggs v. State , 421 S.C. 316, 324, 806 S.E.2d 713, 717 (2017). "Specifically, it is improper for a witness to testify as to his or her opinion about the credibility of a child victim in a sexual abuse matter." State v. Kromah , 401 S.C. 340, 358-59, 737 S.E.2d 490, 500 (2013). A witness should avoid statements:
Id. at 360, 737 S.E.2d at 500.
During the pretrial discussion of Rich's proposed testimony, the circuit court stated it was not necessarily concerned with her qualifications as an expert witness, but with the substance of the opinion she would offer. The State explained, "We'll certainly stay far, far away from [ Kromah ]," and Rich would not be testifying as to the Victim's credibility. The State's plan was for Rich to testify about the symptoms a child sexual abuse victim might display, as well as certain treatment techniques, and discuss the concepts of delayed disclosure and piecemeal disclosure.
And then we will move into some details of her treatment of this victim. You know, was she diagnosed with anything? What was that diagnosis? What symptoms did Minor exhibit? What therapy model she exhibited? And then, whether or not there was, in fact, a disclosure and time and place of that disclosure.
Makins's counsel responded that he was "very likely to object to most all of that" because while the questions themselves might be appropriate as outlined by the solicitor, he had no idea what Rich's answers would be. The circuit court replied:
The court further explained that while it had not seen a case specifically disallowing the testimony the solicitor sought to offer, "on the other hand, I haven't seen one where the court has accepted anything, other than the blind testimony." The State responded that Rich would not testify "about a diagnosis of child sexual abuse. She will discuss a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder
. But we will not get into the diagnosis of child sexual abuse." Makins again objected, noting:
The circuit court took the matter under advisement, noting the defense would be ready to make the necessary contemporaneous objections. Still, the court expressed its preference for a blind expert, reiterating the State would have to walk a tight line in offering the testimony. The circuit court again expressed its concern about Rich's proposed testimony prior to opening statements, explaining,
The circuit court qualified Rich as an expert "in the treatment of child trauma and child sexual abuse dynamics," and Rich testified about the symptoms child victims of sexual abuse may exhibit, the concepts of delayed disclosure and piecemeal disclosure, and therapy methods for treating child victims of sexual abuse. In describing the use of therapy to help child victims express themselves, Rich explained, The solicitor then asked:
Makins advised the circuit court he had a motion to discuss outside the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Makins
...holding a therapist's affirmation she treated the minor victim (Minor) improperly bolstered Minor's credibility. State v. Makins , 428 S.C. 440, 835 S.E.2d 532 (Ct. App. 2019). We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari.BackgroundThe State presented evidence at trial that Maki......
-
S.C. Lottery Comm'n v. Glassmeyer
... ... would constitute unreasonable invasion of personal privacy." Instead, the Lottery Commission disclosed the hometown and state of each winner, the amount of each prize, the date of 857 S.E.2d 892 each prize, and the game associated with each prize. Glassmeyer responded that ... ...