832 S.E.2d 596
S.C.2019Background
- Pantovich beat and killed his former girlfriend with a baseball bat, wrapped her body, and was apprehended while transporting the corpse; he admitted the killing but claimed self-defense.
- At trial Pantovich introduced five witnesses who testified to his peaceable/good character and to McPherson's violence toward him.
- Pantovich requested a jury instruction stating that evidence of good character "alone may create a reasonable doubt"; the State asked for a more balanced instruction; the trial court refused any good-character instruction.
- The jury convicted Pantovich of voluntary manslaughter; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and did not raise the refused instruction; the court of appeals dismissed the appeal.
- In PCR, Pantovich argued appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the refused good-character charge; the PCR court granted relief on the ground counsel was ineffective under prevailing South Carolina precedent (Green, Lee-Grigg).
- The Supreme Court affirmed the PCR grant, but clarified the "good character alone" instruction is improper under later precedent; it nevertheless upheld relief because Strickland review is retrospective and, at the time of appeal, controlling authority supported giving the instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial court's refusal to give a "good character alone" instruction | Pantovich: counsel was deficient and prejudiced because precedent required the charge when good-character evidence was presented | State: the charge is an improper comment on the facts, the charge given was adequate, and any error was harmless | Held: Appellate counsel was ineffective under Strickland given the state of the law at the time; PCR relief affirmed on retrospective review |
| Whether the "good character alone" jury charge is permissible | Pantovich: trial court should have given it when supported by evidence | State: the instruction is an unconstitutional comment on the facts and should be prohibited | Held: The Court agrees the "good character alone" charge is improper and must not be given going forward, but prior controlling precedent made counsel’s failure to raise it deficient at the time of appeal |
| Whether omission of any good-character instruction was harmless | Pantovich: omission likely affected jury’s view on whether he brought on the difficulty (self-defense issue) | State: any omission was harmless; conviction stands despite admission of killing | Held: PCR court correctly found a reasonable probability the instruction would have affected appellate outcome; not harmless in retrospective analysis |
| Proper remedy on remand given modern trend against fact-commentary charges | Pantovich: entitled to relief (new trial) and a non-offending good-character instruction on retrial | State: remand unnecessary if no prejudice; the charge should be entirely barred | Held: Remand for a new trial affirmed; on remand defendant may receive a non-offending, balanced good-character instruction (e.g., the neutral first two paragraphs of his request) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Green, 278 S.C. 239 (1982) (stated that when requested and supported, evidence of good character may in itself create reasonable doubt)
- State v. Lee-Grigg, 387 S.C. 310 (2010) (reversed conviction for refusal to give good-character instruction)
- State v. Belcher, 385 S.C. 597 (2009) (limited practice of judges instructing juries on inferences from facts; began trend restricting fact-commentary charges)
- State v. Cheeks, 401 S.C. 322 (2013) (held certain evidentiary-inference instructions are improper expressions of the judge's view)
- State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493 (2016) (eliminated charge that a sexual-assault victim's testimony need not be corroborated)
- State v. Cartwright, 425 S.C. 81 (2018) (barred limiting instructions or commentary on jury use of a defendant's suicide attempt)
- United States v. Burke, 781 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir. 1985) (rejected "good character alone" jury instruction as giving undue weight to character evidence)
- Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361 (1896) (early Supreme Court discussion on treatment of character evidence that influenced later misreadings requiring an instruction)