State v. Rivers
| Decision Date | 17 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 20937,20937 |
| Citation | 273 S.C. 75,254 S.E.2d 299 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. James Robert RIVERS, Sr., Appellant. |
John H. Douglas, Charleston, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Atty. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes, Columbia, and Sol. Capers G. Barr, III, Charleston, for respondent.
Appellant, James Robert Rivers, Sr., was arrested and charged with kidnapping and statutory criminal sexual conduct. By a verdict of the jury, the appellant was found guilty on both charges and sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnapping and thirty years imprisonment for the criminal sexual conduct. The principal question advanced in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in receiving testimony from the appellant's wife regarding his prior acts of sexual misconduct. We reverse.
There is abundant evidence which, if believed by the jury, warrants the conclusion that the appellant committed criminal sexual conduct upon the prosecuting witness under unusually aggravated circumstances, including hitting her in the face and on the stomach. Appellant's version of the matter was that the prosecutrix consented to intercourse and oral sex.
After the prosecutrix had testified to the circumstances of the assault by the accused, the State offered the testimony of Jewel Rivers, appellant's wife for 26 years, regarding certain sexual practices of the appellant during their marriage. Mrs. Rivers testified that on one occasion in 1976 the appellant, while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, had employed the use of a vibrator to stimulate her and a burning cigarette to inflict pain upon her upper legs. Regarding the sexual conduct of appellant on this same occasion, Mrs. Rivers further testified that her husband was incapable of sustaining an erection and, upon such failure, became angry.
All of this testimony was objected to and the trial court overruled the objections on the stated ground that it was relevant circumstantial evidence which was for the "jury to weigh and equate the probative value as to the testimony, believability, and as to the method of operation used if they find it was used."
It is well settled that evidence of prior crimes or misconduct is not admissible to prove the specific crime charged unless the submitted evidence tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. State v. Anderson, 253 S.C. 168, 169 S.E.2d 706, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 948, 90 S.Ct. 386, 24 L.Ed.2d 253 (1969); State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923). That the evidence be strictly scrutinized before admission under one of the above enumerated exceptions was emphasized by the Lyle Court:
Whether the requisite degree of relevancy exists is a judicial question to be resolved in the light of the consideration that the inevitable tendency of such evidence is to raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors. Hence, If the Court does not clearly perceive the connection between the extraneous criminal transaction and the crime charged, that is, its logical relevancy, the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the evidence should be rejected. (emphasis added)
Id. at 125 S.C. 412, 118 S.E. at 807 (citations omitted).
The State maintains that the evidence was properly admitted because it was offered: (1) to prove the identity of the appellant as perpetrator of the offense and (2) to show a common scheme or plan by demonstrated similarities between the prior incident described by Mrs. Rivers and the crime in question. For admission under either theory, our cases have required that the relationship between the acts must have established...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perry
...her because there was no connection made between the other act and the act for which the defendant was charged); State v. Rivers , 273 S.C. 75, 78, 254 S.E.2d 299, 300 (1979) ("Unable to clearly perceive the connection between the acts as required by Lyle , ... we conclude that the testimon......
-
State v. Humphries
...exclude or tend to exclude the possibility that the present crime could have been committed by another person. State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75, 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979). The question is whether the particular item of evidence tends to show the existence, the nature, or the content of the plan. St......
-
State v. Nelson
...on other grounds, State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993); Stokes, 279 S.C. 191, 304 S.E.2d 814; State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75, 254 S.E.2d 299 (1979); State v. Henry, 313 S.C. 106, 432 S.E.2d 489 (Ct.App.1993); State v. Atkins, 309 S.C. 542, 424 S.E.2d 554 11. For the purpose......
-
State v. Tuffour, 3989.
...(noting that appellate court need not address remaining issues when disposition of prior issue is dispositive); State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75, 79, 254 S.E.2d 299, 301 (1979) (declining to address additional errors raised by appellant in light of the court's decision to reverse and remand the......