Watson v. State, 26197.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Citation634 S.E.2d 642
Docket NumberNo. 26197.,26197.
PartiesBobby WATSON, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
Decision Date14 August 2006

Chief Justice TOAL:

The post-conviction relief ("PCR") court granted Bobby Watson ("Watson") a new trial, finding that counsel was ineffective for eliciting and failing to object to improper hearsay testimony. This Court granted the State's petition to review the PCR judge's decision. We reverse.

FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1999, a nine year old child accused Watson of sexual abuse. The victim made the allegation to her grandmother, who subsequently took the victim to a pediatrician. The pediatrician was unable to discover any evidence of abuse. However, a pediatric nurse practitioner, who specializes in conducting such examinations, later examined the victim more extensively. The nurse found that the victim's condition was consistent with past sexual abuse.

At trial, the victim testified about several incidents of abuse which occurred between 1997 and 1999. She also identified Watson as the perpetrator. Further, several witnesses testified regarding the victim's allegations. In addition to identifying the time and place of the abuse, the witnesses recalled the victim's statements to them regarding the abuse and identified Watson as her abuser.

Watson was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act upon a child. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty years for criminal sexual conduct with a minor and fifteen years for lewd act upon a child. The court of appeals affirmed Watson's convictions and sentences. State v. Watson, 353 S.C. 620, 579 S.E.2d 148 (Ct.App.2003).

Watson filed an application for PCR, alleging that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to improper hearsay testimony. The PCR court found that counsel's only strategic reason for allowing the testimony without objection was that the testimony was "merely cumulative." As a result, the PCR court granted Watson relief. The State appeals raising the following issue for review:

Did the PCR court err in finding that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of hearsay testimony?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a PCR applicant must prove: (1) that counsel failed to render reasonably effective assistance under prevailing professional norms; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the applicant's case. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). This Court gives great deference to the PCR court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Caprood v. State, 338 S.C 103, 109, 525 S.E.2d 514, 517 (2000) (citing McCray v. State, 317 S.C. 557, 455 S.E.2d 686 (1995)). On review, a PCR judge's findings will be upheld if there is any evidence of probative value sufficient to support them. Cherry v. State, 300 S.C. 115, 119, 386 S.E.2d 624, 626 (1989). If no probative evidence exists to support the findings, this Court will reverse. Pierce v. State, 338 S.C. 139, 144, 526 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2000) (citing Holland v. State, 322 S.C. 111, 470 S.E.2d 378 (1996)).

LAW / ANALYSIS

The State contends that the PCR court erred in finding that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction of hearsay testimony. We agree.

"The rule against hearsay prohibits the admission of evidence of an out-of-court statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless an exception to the rule applies." Dawkins v. State, 346 S.C. 151, 156, 551 S.E.2d 260, 262 (2001) (citing Jolly v. State, 314 S.C. 17, 20, 443 S.E.2d 566, 568 (1994)). One exception to the rule allows limited corroborative testimony in criminal sexual conduct cases when the victim testifies. Id.; Rule 801(d)(1)(D), SCRE. The corroborative testimony is restricted to the victim's complaint of the time and place of the sexual assault. Dawkins, 346 S.C. at 156, 551 S.E.2d at 262. Any other details or particulars, including the perpetrator's identity, must be excluded. Id. at 156, 551 S.E.2d at 263.

This Court has held that the failure to object to improper hearsay testimony in a criminal sexual conduct case because the testimony is merely cumulative to the victim's testimony is not a reasonable strategy where the evidence is not overwhelming or the improper testimony bolsters the victim's testimony. Dawkins, 346 S.C. at 157, 551 S.E.2d at 263. However, where counsel articulates a valid reason for employing a certain strategy, such conduct will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel. Stokes v. State, 308 S.C. 546, 419 S.E.2d 778 (1992).

In this case, several witnesses testified about the abuse allegations against Watson. The victim's grandmother testified that the victim said, "Grandmomma, ah, Buster assaulted me sexually."1 Additionally, a department of social services investigator and two psychologists testified that the victim had identified Watson as her abuser. One of the psychologists also provided detailed statements from the victim regarding the abuse, including statements such as "he stuck his thing in me." Portions of the corroborative testimony presented at trial were elicited by Watson's trial counsel. At no time did Watson's trial counsel object to the admission of the testimony.

At the PCR hearing, trial counsel testified that she did not object to the hearsay testimony because she wanted to avoid the possibility that the prosecution would have shown the video of the victim talking about the sexual abuse. Counsel stated that, "I used my own judgment. Had I objected, then they could have shown the video and shown the child again. And I did not think that was wise, to keep showing that . . . the child telling about the abuse over and over, and over, and the jury seeing the child telling that over and over and over." The PCR court found that Watson's trial counsel failed to object to the hearsay testimony because "it was merely cumulative of the victim's testimony."

While the PCR court correctly found that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay under Rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Smalls v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Febrero 2018
    ...529, 657 S.E.2d 771, 776 (2008) ; Smith v. State , 375 S.C. 507, 515, 654 S.E.2d 523, 528 (2007) ; Watson v. State , 370 S.C. 68, 71, 634 S.E.2d 642, 643 (2006) ; Porter , 368 S.C. at 383, 629 S.E.2d at 356 ; Simpson v. Moore , 367 S.C. 587, 595, 627 S.E.2d 701, 705 (2006) ; Bright v. State......
  • Brown v. State, 4297.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • 5 Octubre 2007
    ...valid reason for employing a certain strategy, such conduct will not be deemed ineffective assistance of counsel." Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 72, 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006). Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 610 S.E.2d 812 (2005); Stokes v. State, 308 S.C. 546, 419 S.E.2d 778 (1992). Couns......
  • Stone v. State, Appellate Case No. 2013-001968
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 29 Marzo 2017
    ...reasonably perceives the benefits of doing so are outweighed by some other consideration. See Watson v. State , 370 S.C. 68, 72–73, 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006) (finding counsel's performance was not deficient in making the decision not to object to "inadmissible" testimony because his strate......
  • Stone v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 8 Febrero 2017
    ...reasonably perceives the benefits of doing so are outweighedPage 7 by some other consideration. See Watson v. State, 370 S.C. 68, 72-73, 634 S.E.2d 642, 644 (2006) (finding counsel's performance was not deficient in making the decision not to object to "inadmissible" testimony because his s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT