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

The State, Respondent, v. Vivian Lynn Schrader-Falls, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001679

No. 2016-UP-378

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

July 27, 2016

Unpublished Opinion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.

PER CURIAM

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) ("Constitutional issues, like most others, must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appeal. The record contains no indication that Corley ever raised a due process argument in the circuit court. This argument is not preserved for review." (citation omitted)); State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("A party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve it, but it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground."); id. ("A party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.").

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) ("Where the trial court reasonably believed that the defendant planned to testify and that his testimony was necessary to lay the foundation for another witness's testimony, a ruling that the defendant must testify before the other witness does not constitute Brooks error."); Harris v. Barkley, 202 F.3d 169, 173-74 (2d Cir. 2000) (finding a trial court did not violate Brooks in ruling the defendant had to testify-if he chose to testify at all-prior to a witness whose appearance was delayed); Loher v. State, 310 P.3d 1047, n.6 (Haw. Ct. App. 2011) ("A number of courts have similarly held that no Brooks violation occurs where the defendant made the decision [to testify] before the trial court's ruling. These courts reason that the trial court's ruling could not have influenced the defendant's decision to testify. If the defendant has decided to testify no matter what, the order of witnesses is less crucial. The rationale underlying Brooks- allowing the defendant to make an informed decision regarding the need for and value of his testimony-is not applicable in such situations." (citations omitted)).

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 (suggesting a harmless error analysis applies when the trial court requires the defendant to testify before other witnesses testified); State v. Kido, 76 P.3d 612, 621 (Haw. Ct. App. 2003) ("[T]he Brooks Court impliedly held that the error there, so similar to the error here, was subject to harmless error analysis."); Stoddard v. State, 31 A.3d 603, 613 (Md. 2011) ("Violations of Brooks are subject to harmless error analysis. The Supreme Court in Brooks suggested that the error is subject to harmless error analysis by noting that the State 'ma[de] no claim that this was harmless error, ' 406 U.S. at 613, and other courts have applied harmless error analysis to Brooks violations. See, e.g., [United States v.] Rantz, 862 F.2d [808, 812-13 (10th Cir. 1988)]. The error before us is trial error, not structural error, and is subject to harmless error analysis." (first alteration by court) (footnote omitted)).

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...