State v. Mitchell

Decision Date25 September 1985
Docket NumberNo. 22384,22384
Citation286 S.C. 572,336 S.E.2d 150
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant. . Heard

Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, Lexington, for respondent.

NESS, Chief Justice:

Appellant was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct.He alleges prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony against him.We affirm.

The victim told the police her assailant was wearing a dark colored jacket or shirt.She later identified appellant from a photographic line-up.

Appellant's wife consented to a search of their home.At trial, a police officer who searched appellant's home testified he was unable to locate a dark jacket.The police officer testified, over objection, that appellant's wife said appellant owned a dark jacket, but she had washed it and could not locate it.Appellant's wife did not testify.

This testimony was clearly hearsay and was not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule.State v. Williams, --- S.C. ---, 331 S.E.2d 354(S.C.App.1985).Hearsay testimony is inadmissible because the adverse party is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.State v. James, 255 S.C. 365, 179 S.E.2d 41(1971).However, reversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error.State v. Brown, --- S.C. ----, 334 S.E.2d 816(1985).

Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case.No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.Error is harmless when it "could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial."State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 180 S.E.2d 888(1971).

Here, there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found appellant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony.The victim identified appellant without hesitation in the photographic line-up and at trial.In addition, a State's witness saw appellant wearing a blue coat the night of the assault.In light of these and other facts appearing in the record, we believe the admission of the hearsay testimony was harmless error.

Appellant's remaining exceptions are...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
134 cases
  • State v. Curry
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 2006
    ...520, 524 (2005). However, error is harmless where it could not reasonably have affected the trial's outcome. State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985). In considering whether error is harmless, a case's particular facts must be considered along with various factors in......
  • State v. Sims
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • April 17, 2008
    ...testimony is inadmissible because the adverse party is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant." State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 150 (1985). "[R]eversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error." Mitchell, 286 S.C. at 573, 336 S.E.2d a......
  • State v. Lyles
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 2008
    ...373, 375 (2005). "Error is harmless when it `could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93, 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971)); accord State v. Sherard, 303 S.C. 172, 175, 399 S.......
  • State v. Douglas
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 2006
    ...the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case. State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 336 S.E.2d 150 (1985). Error is harmless where it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial. In re Harvey, 355 S.C. at 63, 58......
  • Get Started for Free

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