The State v. Torres, No. 26904.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Justice HEARN.
• Citation: 703 S.E.2d 226,390 S.C. 618
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent,v.Andres Antonio TORRES, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 26904.
• Decision Date: 13 December 2010

390 S.C. 618
703 S.E.2d 226

The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Andres Antonio TORRES, Appellant.

No. 26904.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard Sept. 22, 2010.Decided Dec. 13, 2010.

[703 S.E.2d 227]

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; Harold W. Gowdy, III, Seventh Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.Justice HEARN.

[390 S.C. 620] Anthony Andres Torres (“Torres”) appeals the circuit court's admission into evidence of autopsy photographs and a videotape recording during the sentencing phase of his capital murder trial. Torres contends the photographs should have been excluded based on South Carolina Rule of Evidence 403, and the videotape recording should have been excluded based on either Rule 403 or Section 16–3–25(C)(1) of the South Carolina Code (2003). We affirm.

[390 S.C. 621] FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May of 2007, Union County Emergency Services received a call reporting a one-car accident involving a van. Subsequently, Torres was identified by witnesses in a police photo line-up as the driver of the van.

Officers arrived on the scene of the accident shortly after Torres fled the area and discovered that the van was registered in the name of Ann Emery. Officers found Ann and her husband Charles Ray Emery's (collectively “the Emerys”) belongings in the van, and based on that discovery, requested a welfare check on their residence.

Upon arriving at the Emerys' residence and getting no response at the front door, officers walked around the house to check for signs of forced entry. Finding none, officers entered the residence through an unsecured door, immediately smelled the odor of gasoline, and noticed the house felt hot. Officers discovered the body of Charles Ray Emery lying face down on the mattress in the bedroom. The body of Ann Emery was discovered on the floor beside the bed after EMS arrived on scene. Due to the extent of their injuries, neither body could be identified at the scene, and identification was accomplished at the hospital during an autopsy. Due to the compromising position of Ann Emery's body at the scene, a sexual assault kit was administered. Semen taken from Ann Emery's body by way of the kit matched DNA of Torres. Torres was indicted on:

[703 S.E.2d 228]

two counts of armed robbery; two counts of murder; one count of burglary of a dwelling, first degree; one count of attempt to burn; and one count of criminal sexual conduct, first degree. A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict of guilty on all counts.

During the sentencing phase, the State sought to introduce a video recording showing prison guards using pepper-spray to force Torres to comply with a pat-down request. The events documented on the tape occurred the night that Torres was found guilty. Torres refused to allow prison guards to touch him when the guards requested that he place his hands on the wall for a pat-down. The guards explained that the pat-down was policy and indicated that if he continued to refuse, Torres would be pepper-sprayed. Torres continued to resist after several requests for compliance, so the guards [390 S.C. 622] used pepper-spray to restrain him. Torres objected, citing Section 16–3–25(C)(1) of the South Carolina Code (2003); Rule 403, SCRE; and a violation of Miranda v. Arizona. However, the trial judge overruled Torres' objections and admitted the video recording. Additionally, the State introduced sixteen autopsy photographs of the Emerys. Torres objected again, citing Rule 403. The trial judge excluded three of the photographs based on Rule 403 and admitted the remaining thirteen.

The defense called various witnesses who testified regarding Torres' mental issues throughout his childhood and adult life and his substance abuse problems. James Aiken, a prison consultant, testified nothing in Torres' records or in the video recording shown by the State gave him any concern about Torres' ability to adapt to life in prison because wardens would be able to manage his behavior.

At the end of the sentencing phase, the jury recommended Torres be sentenced to death. The trial judge sentenced Torres to death, finding the evidence warranted the imposition of the death penalty, and the imposition was not the result of prejudice, passion, or any other arbitrary factor.

ISSUES

Torres raises two issues on appeal:

1. Did the trial judge commit reversible error at sentencing by allowing the State to introduce autopsy photographs of the victims in violation of Rule 403, SCRE?

2. Did the trial judge commit reversible error at sentencing by allowing the State to introduce a video recording of Torres being pepper-sprayed and subdued in the detention center in violation of Section 16–3–25(C)(1) of the South Carolina Code (2003) and Rule 403, SCRE?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Generally, “[i]n criminal cases, an appellate court reviews errors of law only and is bound by the factual findings of the trial court unless clearly erroneous.” State v. Bryant, 372 S.C. 305, 312, 642 S.E.2d 582, 586 (2007). “The relevance, materiality, and admissibility of photographs are matters within[390 S.C. 623] the sound discretion of the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of...