McCoy v. State
737 S.E.2d 623
S.C.2013Background
- McCoy was indicted on first-degree burglary and assault with intent to kill; trial began June 14, 2005; voir dire disclosed juror relationships to the Seventh Circuit Solicitor but Juror 84 did not disclose a cousin's marriage to the Solicitor.
- Defense used 4 of 10 peremptory strikes; Petitioner was convicted on both offenses after trial.
- Post-direct appeal and first PCR denial, McCoy discovered in 2009 that Juror 84 disclosed the relationship during another inmate’s trial the day after McCoy’s trial, prompting a second PCR claim based on impaired jury impartiality.
- McCoy argued the juror concealment deprived him of information material to intelligent use of peremptory challenges and thus his right to an impartial jury.
- McCoy asserted the discovery rule (§ 17-27-45(C)) allowed timely filing within one year after discovery of material facts; he claimed discovery occurred in 2009 and was not available earlier.
- The State moved to dismiss as untimely and successive; the PCR judge summarily dismissed, concluding claims were untimely and could have been raised earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness and discovery rule applicability | McCoy qualifies under discovery rule; discovery occurred in 2009. | Time limits barred; late and not within allowed discovery window. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; remand for hearing on timeliness. |
| Successiveness under § 17-27-90 | New juror-concealment facts could not have been raised earlier; sufficient reason shown for late filing. | Juror misconduct could have been discovered earlier with due diligence; no sufficient reason shown. | Material factual dispute; remand to resolve whether claim is successive. |
| Standard for juror misconduct claims in PCR | Clark five-pronged newly discovered evidence test should apply. | Clark framework governs newly discovered evidence and can apply to juror issues. | Clark framework has no application for juror misconduct; Woods framework applies; factual development via hearing is preferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. South, 310 S.C. 504 (1993) (newly discovered evidence must be material to guilt or innocence)
- State v. Woods, 345 S.C. 583 (2001) (intentional concealment by a juror supports new trial; per se prejudice not required)
- State v. Kelly, 331 S.C. 132 (1998) (juror information accuracy; duty to screen biased jurors)
- State v. Sparkman, 358 S.C. 491 (2004) (juror voir dire and concealment are evaluated case-by-case)
- Clark v. State, 315 S.C. 385 (1993) (five-pronged test for newly discovered evidence)
- Hayden v. State, 278 S.C. 610 (1983) (classic formulation of discovery-rights in evidence)
- Leamon v. State, 363 S.C. 432 (2005) (summary dismissal inappropriate where factual issues exist)
- Delaney v. State, 269 S.C. 555 (1977) (summary dismissal cannot foreclose factual development)