810 S.E.2d 836
S.C.2018Background
- May 21, 2000: Armed robbery at a Bojangles in Columbia; victim Green called police after escaping; officers found a 12‑gauge shotgun and a white bag with cash near a gate.
- Fingerprint examiners later testified one of several prints on the shotgun matched Stephen Smalls.
- Green identified Smalls in a photographic lineup four days after the robbery; Lightner narrowed suspects to two but did not make a positive ID at trial.
- At trial the jury convicted Smalls of armed robbery (2002); Smalls later sought post‑conviction relief (PCR) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- PCR and Court of Appeals found counsel deficient in multiple respects (failure to impeach Green regarding a dismissed carjacking charge; failure to object to State eliciting an unproven prior burglary; failure to challenge a prosecutor opening remark), but the court of appeals held there was no prejudice because the evidence of guilt was "overwhelming."
- South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the no‑prejudice ruling, holding counsel’s failures undermined confidence in the verdict and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smalls) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel performed deficiently by failing to impeach Green with dismissal of a pending carjacking charge | Counsel should have used the dismissed charge to show Green’s bias and possible expectation of leniency; failure fell below objective standard | The dismissal was not necessarily admissible or impactful; trial counsel made reasonable choices | Deficient — counsel should have pursued impeachment and forcing disclosure of any deal; omission unreasonable |
| Whether counsel was deficient for not objecting when State elicited suggestion Smalls burglarized to obtain the shotgun | Counsel should have objected to improper Rule 404(b) evidence and lack of clear proof of prior bad act | State argued testimony was legitimate redirect to rebut defense hypothesis of an innocent explanation for the fingerprint | Deficient — question/answer improperly injected unproven prior bad act and counsel’s failure to object was unreasonable |
| Whether counsel was deficient for not challenging prosecutor’s opening remark that police saw Smalls leaving the store | Smalls argued counsel should have objected or highlighted inconsistency to jury | State argued opening remarks can be supported by other trial testimony (Potash, Green) and omission can be a reasonable trial choice | Not shown deficient — court declined to find deficiency on this point given trial context and presumption of reasonable strategy |
| Whether the deficiencies prejudiced Smalls under Strickland (reasonable probability of different outcome) | Errors (failure to impeach Green re: dismissed carjacking; failure to object to improper burglary suggestion) undermined key ID and fingerprint evidence and created reasonable probability of different verdict | State argued evidence (Green ID, Lightner narrowing suspects, fingerprint, flight) was overwhelming, so no prejudice | Held for Smalls — evidence was not "overwhelming" once tainted testimony and improper burglary suggestion are discounted; errors undermined confidence in outcome and require new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel) (framework for analysis)
- Franklin v. Catoe, 346 S.C. 563 (discussing what constitutes "overwhelming evidence" that can preclude prejudice) (explains conclusive evidence examples)
- State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16 (recognizing pending charges may be strong impeachment for bias) (supports use of pending/dismissed charges to show witness bias)
- Rosemond v. Catoe, 383 S.C. 320 (affirming that truly overwhelming evidence can negate prejudice despite counsel error) (illustrates categorical "overwhelming evidence" application)
- Geter v. State, 305 S.C. 365 (weighing strength of State's case in prejudice analysis) (used as precedent for balancing error impact against evidence strength)