State v. Schrader-Falls
Decision Date | 27 July 2016 |
Docket Number | 2016-UP-378 |
Parties | The State, Respondent, v. Vivian Lynn Schrader-Falls, Appellant. Appellate Case No. 2014-001679 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Unpublished Opinion
Heard June 8, 2016
Appeal From Horry County Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge
Benjamin Rogers Gooding and Beth B. Richardson, both of Sowell Gray Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, all of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A Richardson, II, of Conway, for Respondent.
Vivian Schrader-Falls appeals her conviction for murder, arguing the trial court erred in requiring her-after she confirmed her decision to testify-to testify prior to an expert witness. We affirm.
Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion and violated her due process rights under Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 612 (1972), by requiring her to testify before her expert witness testified. Additionally, Appellant maintains this error resulted in a structural defect and is, therefore not subject to a harmless error analysis. We disagree.
Initially we find Appellant's due process argument is not preserved. Appellant objected to the trial court's ruling regarding the order of the witnesses; however, Appellant failed to make any arguments regarding her due process rights or Brooks as she does on appeal. See In re Care & Treatment of Corley, 365 S.C. 252, 258, 616 S.E.2d 441, 444 (Ct. App. 2005) ( ; State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) (); id. ().
As to the merits of the due process argument, even if it was preserved, we find the trial court did not violate Appellant's due process rights. See Johnson v. Minor, 594 F.3d 608, 613 (8th Cir. 2010) (); Harris v. Barkley, 202 F.3d 169, 173-74 (2d Cir. 2000) ( ); Loher v. State, 310 P.3d 1047, n.6 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011) ( .
Furthermore, we find the alleged due process violation did not constitute a structural defect and is, therefore, subject to a harmless error analysis. See Brooks, 406 U.S. at 613 (the trial court requires the defendant to testify before other witnesses testified) a harmless error analysis applies when ; State v. Kido, 76 P.3d 612, 621 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003) (); Stoddard v. State, 31 A.3d 603, 613 (Md. 2011) ( .
Consequently even assuming the trial court violated Appellant's due process rights or abused its discretion under South Carolina case law or rules of evidence by requiring Appellant to testify prior to her expert witness, we find any...
To continue reading
Request your trial