State v. Ross, 20807
Decision Date | 14 November 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 20807,20807 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Lucille B. ROSS, Appellant. |
Jesse A. McCall, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Greenville, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Robert N. Wells, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. William W. Wilkins, Jr., Greenville, for respondent.
Lucille B. Ross was tried for the murder of Jackson Sprouse. She admitted the killing and pleaded self-defense. Following a jury verdict against her, she appealed, alleging errors in the admission of evidence and in the charge to the jury.
The events surrounding Sprouse's death are not disputed: Janice Brookshire and her brother-in-law, Buddy Mackey, were engaged in a fight in a tavern parking lot. The decedent, who was Janice's estranged husband, pulled Janice away from Buddy and began kicking her. The defendant intervened to protect her sister, Janice. At some time after intervening, she drew a gun and killed Sprouse. There is testimony that Sprouse had a knife and that he was close enough to the defendant to use it, about three-and-a-half to four feet from her, when the shooting occurred.
At trial, Wayne Anthony was called as a witness for the prosecution during its case-in-chief. After he was asked a few preliminary questions, the following exchange, alleged to be erroneous and prejudicial, occurred:
(Defense Counsel) PARTEE :
Your Honor, I don't know what we're trying here.
We're trying a murder case.
MR. PARTEE :
Yes, sir, but he's going into . . .
A relationship between the State's witness and the Defendant, which I think is relevant, if he doesn't get into too many true confessions.
(Assistant Solicitor):
No sir, I'm not.
Your Honor, this is far afield and I don't think it's proper.
There again, Mr. Partee, the relationship between this witness and the Defendant is important I suppose as it would bear on whatever he's going to testify to later and for that reason I'll have to admit it.
(Assistant Solicitor):
Her sister had made a moving picture of you and the defendant?
A: Yeah. And she asked me several times how would I like for her to show that to my wife.
(Assistant Solicitor):
The motion was denied.
We hold that admission of the above testimony was erroneous and prejudicial and that defense counsel did not waive his client's right to a new trial.
Character evidence is so highly prejudicial that it is usually excluded under hard and fast rules. State v. Britt, 235 S.C. 395, 111 S.E.2d 669 (1959); McCormick, Evidence § 186, p. 442 (2d ed. 1972). The testimony quoted above went to the defendant's character. The agreed statement of facts, which is binding on the court, includes the following:
We agree that the testimony elicited had the effect of placing the bad character of the defendant in issue when she herself had not placed her good character in issue. Notwithstanding the admission of evidence which we find prejudicial, the State contends that the defendant waived her rights by counsel's failure to object more promptly. His objection to the blackmail testimony was timely. The assistant solicitor asked witness Anthony what happened when he attempted to break off his relationship with the defendant. Defense counsel promptly objected before an answer could be made. While it is true he did not clearly set forth the basis of his objection, it may have been because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Witherspoon v. Stonebreaker
...substantive, preserved objections in some cases. Consider, for example, the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in State v. Ross , 272 S.C. 56, 249 S.E.2d 159 (1978). The attempted objection there read as follows:[PROSECUTOR]: Did you ever try to break it off with her?[WITNESS]: Yes, I ......
-
State v. Nelson
...I would hold petitioner did not preserve his objections to the items introduced into evidence. The majority relies upon State v. Ross, 272 S.C. 56, 249 S.E.2d 159 (1978), which holds an objection to a line of questioning is sufficient to object to a particular question. In my opinion, the s......
-
Winkler v. State
...to strike testimony which the trial court had already ruled was proper, as such a motion would have been futile); State v. Ross, 272 S.C. 56, 60–61, 249 S.E.2d 159, 162 (1978) (holding that once the judge rules on an objection, counsel need not repeat the objection after each question).12 T......
-
Witherspoon v. Stonebreaker
...between the State's witness and the Defendant, which I think is relevant, if he doesn't get into too many true confessions. Ross, 249 S.E.2d at 160. While conceding defense counsel "did not clearly set forth the basis of his objection" in this exchange with the judge, the state Supreme Cour......