State v. McClellan
| Decision Date | 01 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 22188,22188 |
| Citation | 323 S.E.2d 772,283 S.C. 389 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert J. McCLELLAN, Appellant. . Heard |
Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia, and Sol. J. DuPre Miller, Bennettsville, for respondent.
This appeal is from Appellant's conviction on one count of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.
We affirm.
Appellant contends the trial judge erred, first in admitting testimony from the prosecutrix, his daughter, and her sisters regarding prior bad acts, and second, in admitting opinion testimony from a lay witness: We disagree.
Appellant was indicted on one count of criminal sexual conduct against his youngest daughter, age 15. All three daughters testified concerning the pattern of this and prior attacks. According to them, these attacks commenced about their twelfth birthday, at which time Appellant began entering their bedroom late at night, waking them, and taking one of them to his bedroom. There he would explain the Biblical verse that children are to "Honor thy Father", and would also indicate he was teaching them how to be with their husbands. The method of attack was common to all three daughters.
None of the daughters reported these incidents until they read a news article which informed the public of available assistance from DSS in such matters. Appellant's daughters then made a joint decision to report the crimes.
Appellant presented an alibi defense. He testified that while his live-in girlfriend was at work, he spent the night in question with another woman.
Evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible to prove the crime for which a defendant is charged unless it establishes: (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan; or (5) the identity of the person charged. State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923); State v. Stokes, 279 S.C. 191, 304 S.E.2d 814 (1983). The trial judge admitted the daughters' testimony concerning prior misconduct as evidence of a common scheme or plan.
In State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 89 S.E.2d 701 (1955), we held the common scheme exception to the Lyle rule "is generally applied in cases involving sexual crimes, where evidence of acts prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is held admissible as tending to show continued illicit intercourse between the same parties." Whitener, 228 S.C. at 265, citing State v. Richey, 88 S.C. 239, 70 S.E. 729 (1911). The prosecutrix's testimony regarding prior attacks was admissible under this exception to show the continued illicit intercourse forced upon her by Appellant.
Courts must weigh the probative value of evidence of prior bad acts against its prejudicial effect. Such evidence is inadmissible "unless the close similarity of the charged offense and the previous act[s] enhances the probative value of the evidence so as to overrule the prejudicial effect." [Citations omitted.] State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75, 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979).
This evidence was properly admitted. The experiences of each daughter parallel that of her sisters: the initial attack occurred around age twelve; Appellant entered their room and chose one of them, who would be forced to submit; he gave to each the same explanation for his actions; and he quoted to each the Biblical verse.
It would be difficult to conceive of a common scheme or plan more within the plain meaning of the exception than that presented by this evidence.
Appellant next contends that it was error to admit reply testimony by the State.
On direct and cross-examination, Appellant denied the sexual assaults and the use and sale of marijuana. In reply, the State recalled Appellant's daughters, who testified that Appellant: (1) had sexually assaulted them; (2) used and sold marijuana; and (3) forced them to smoke marijuana prior to his attacks upon them.
We have held that where bad acts have not resulted in a conviction, guilty plea, indictment or arrest, the State's use of such evidence is limited. State v. Gore, S.C., 322 S.E.2d 12 (1984).
However, where guilt is proven by competent evidence and no rational conclusion can be reached other than the accused's guilt, a conviction will not be set aside because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result. State v. Key, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perry
...only support a general similarity, and thus are insufficient to support the common scheme or plan exception"); State v. McClellan , 283 S.C. 389, 392, 323 S.E.2d 772, 774 (1984) ("It would be difficult to conceive of a common scheme or plan more within the plain meaning of the exception tha......
-
State v. Warren
...a foster child, evidence of alleged sexual abuse of other foster children admissible to show common scheme or plan); State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984) (testimony of defendant's daughters concerning defendant's prior sexual misconduct was admissible as evidence of commo......
-
State v. Humphries
...for sexual gratification in each instance, and abuse commenced in exactly same manner under similar circumstances); State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984)(victim's testimony regarding prior attacks upon her by defendant was admissible under common scheme exception in order ......
-
State v. Martucci
...of abuse becomes even more probative than it might otherwise be." Pierce, 326 S.C. at 182, 485 S.E.2d at 916 (citing State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389, 323 S.E.2d 772 (1984)) (Burnett, J., dissenting). Justice Burnett further elaborated: "[c]ontinued illicit intercourse is analogous to a pat......