806 S.E.2d 713
S.C.2017Background
- Briggs was tried in 2010 for first-degree criminal sexual conduct and lewd act on a child; jury convicted on multiple counts and he received a life sentence.
- At trial, the State presented two videotaped forensic interviews of the victim and called Michele Arroyo‑Staggs, the forensic interviewer, to testify and be qualified as an expert in child abuse assessment.
- Arroyo‑Staggs testified on direct that she emphasized telling the truth, opined the child was not coached, stated her role was to determine whether the child knew truth from lie, and described the forensic interview as conducted to determine whether something happened.
- Trial counsel Singleton did not object to her qualification or much of her testimony and on cross‑examination asked questions that elicited testimony that Arroyo‑Staggs believed the child.
- Briggs obtained post‑conviction relief (PCR) on ineffective assistance grounds; the PCR court granted a new trial. The State appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed the PCR court and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to forensic interviewer’s qualification as an expert | Briggs: counsel erred in not objecting to expert qualification, enabling undue weight to interviewer’s statements | State: qualification of a child‑abuse‑assessment expert was permissible and not clearly erroneous in 2010 | Not deficient — failure to object to expert qualification was reasonable given precedent permitting such expertise at the time (affirmed) |
| Whether counsel performed deficiently by failing to object to direct‑examination testimony that bolstered victim credibility | Briggs: Arroyo‑Staggs’s statements (role to find whether abuse occurred; child knew truth/lie) improperly vouched for the victim | State: some testimony (e.g., instructing child to tell truth) was acceptable under earlier cases; standards evolved later | Deficient — counsel should have objected to testimony conveying interviewer’s belief that abuse occurred and that child understood truth/lie (prejudice found) |
| Whether counsel elicited improper bolstering on cross‑examination | Briggs: Singleton’s cross questions invited expert to state she believed the victim, compounding harm | State: no valid strategic purpose for those questions | Deficient — cross‑examination questions solicited direct opinion of victim’s truthfulness and were unjustified |
| Whether Briggs was prejudiced by counsel’s failures (Strickland prong two) | Briggs: case turned on victim credibility; improper bolstering by an expert created reasonable probability of different outcome | State: other incriminating evidence (statements, jailhouse informants) made conviction likely despite bolstering | Held for Briggs — PCR court’s credibility findings supported prejudice; reasonable probability of different outcome; new trial ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Douglas, 380 S.C. 499 (S.C. 2009) (forensic interviewer’s instruction about telling truth not necessarily improper vouching)
- Smith v. State, 386 S.C. 562 (S.C. 2010) (forensic interviewer’s testimony that victim was "believable" and had no reason to lie was improper bolstering; counsel ineffective for failing to object)
- State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340 (S.C. 2013) (explaining forensic interviewer’s role as fact‑collector and limits on testimony)
- State v. Anderson, 413 S.C. 212 (S.C. 2015) (holding forensic interviewer may not testify that interview was conducted to determine whether abuse occurred; such testimony impermissibly bolsters victim)
- State v. Dawkins, 297 S.C. 386 (S.C. 1989) (witness may not give opinion on another witness’s credibility)