895 S.E.2d 679
S.C. Ct. App.2023Background
- Carrier was indicted twice (2009, 2012) for lewd act on a child; both indictments listed deputy Christopher Haden as the presenting/witness though Haden never testified before either grand jury.
- Trial counsel moved to quash the second indictment shortly before trial, asserting Haden was not the presenting witness, but presented no evidentiary support; the motion was denied.
- Carrier was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 15 years; the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed in a per curiam opinion that noted the lack of supporting evidence at trial.
- Carrier filed a PCR alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to introduce evidence to support the motion to quash; the PCR court found counsel deficient, concluded Carrier was prejudiced, and deemed the misnamed witness a structural error.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the misnomer on the indictment is not a structural error and Carrier failed to show prejudice because the indictment was legally sufficient, could have been amended, and the State could likely have reindicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carrier) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel's failure to present evidence to support motion to quash constituted ineffective assistance (prejudice prong) | The PCR grant was erroneous because any defect was non-prejudicial: indictment was legally sufficient, could have been amended, and State could reindict | Counsel's failure to produce evidence deprived Carrier of relief; had evidence been presented indictments would have been quashed and issue preserved on appeal | Reversed: counsel's deficiency assumed, but Carrier failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome (no prejudice) |
| Whether listing the wrong witness on the indictment is a structural error requiring presumed prejudice | Misnomer is not a structural error; no authority treats a misnamed presenting witness as structural; Weaver categories show this error is not automatically presumptively prejudicial | Erroneous listing violated statutory grand jury requirements and undermines the grand jury safeguard, so prejudice should be presumed | Reversed: misnomer is not a structural error; no automatic presumption of prejudice; error was a minor form defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless-error doctrine vs structural errors)
- Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (distinguishing trial-process errors from structural errors)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (discusses categories of structural error and when prejudice must be shown)
- State v. Rivera, 402 S.C. 225 (S.C. treatment of structural-error doctrine)
- State v. Evans, 363 S.C. 495 (framework for categorizing grand jury/indictment defects)