785 S.E.2d 350
S.C.2016Background
- Petitioner Rutland was convicted of murder, possession of a firearm during a violent crime, and pointing a firearm; sentenced to life without parole; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- At trial three people were present at the shooting: Rutland, the victim, and two witnesses—Sally Peele (victim’s estranged wife and Rutland’s partner) and Boutique employee Kimberly Kestner.
- Kestner previously gave written and media statements that the victim pulled a gun, but at trial she testified she never saw the victim with a gun and described only seeing cigarette packs and then hearing shots.
- Trial counsel did not cross-examine Kestner about her prior inconsistent statements or introduce the police report/newspaper article impeachment evidence; counsel later acknowledged awareness of the prior statements but cited oversight and inability to find the article.
- At PCR, the judge found counsel deficient for failing to impeach Kestner but ruled petitioner failed to prove prejudice; petitioner produced Kestner’s signed police statement and affidavits from third parties repeating Kestner’s earlier statements.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on whether counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine Kestner and reversed the PCR judge, finding prejudice established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to cross-examine the State's key witness (Kestner) about prior inconsistent statements | Rutland: counsel’s failure to impeach Kestner with her police statement and media statements was deficient and prejudiced the defense because Kestner was the only independent witness and impeachment would have undermined the State’s theory that victim was unarmed | State: PCR judge found petitioner did not prove prejudice; noted petitioner did not put Kestner on at PCR and allegedly lacked extrinsic proof of prior statements | Court reversed: counsel was deficient and prejudice shown; impeachment would likely have undermined confidence in outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance of counsel test)
- Ard v. Catoe, 642 S.E.2d 590 (S.C. 2007) (burden on PCR applicant to prove claims)
- Webb v. State, 314 S.E.2d 839 (S.C. 1984) (appellate review of PCR factual findings with any probative evidence)
- Holland v. State, 470 S.E.2d 378 (S.C. 1996) (will not uphold PCR findings without probative evidence)
- Thomas v. State, 417 S.E.2d 531 (S.C. 1992) (ineffective assistance where counsel failed to call key witnesses who could undermine prosecution theory)