Watson v. State, No. 26197.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: Toal
• Citation: 634 S.E.2d 642
• Parties: Bobby WATSON, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner.
• Decision Date: 14 August 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26197.

634 S.E.2d 642 Bobby WATSON, Respondent,
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. No. 26197. Supreme Court of South Carolina. Submitted June 21, 2006. Decided August 14, 2006.

Page 643

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Karen C. Ratigan, all of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Respondent.

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.

Page 644

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...