Smalls v. State, 783 S.E.2d 817

Background

Petitioner Stephen Smalls was convicted of armed robbery arising from a 2000 Bojangles robbery; jury convicted after <1 hour and he received 25 years.
Eyewitness Eugene Green identified Petitioner (photo lineup 4 days later and in-court) and described seeing Petitioner leave with a shotgun and a bag of money; Green had prior felony convictions.
The shotgun and money bag were recovered near the restaurant; a fingerprint on the shotgun matched Petitioner. Police later found Petitioner fleeing and he abandoned a child when officers identified him.
At trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony implying Petitioner had burglarized a house that was the source of the shotgun; the prosecutor also told jurors in opening that police saw Petitioner leaving the scene; and the State had dismissed a carjacking charge against Green the morning of trial.
Trial counsel (inexperienced) failed to object to the burglary reference or the opening remark, and did not preserve on-record the trial court’s refusal to permit cross-examination of Green about the dismissed carjacking charge.
On PCR, the court found trial counsel deficient on those three performance points but denied relief because the State’s evidence was overwhelming; the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
1. Failure to object to testimony implying prior burglary	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting/moving for mistrial when investigator testified Petitioner burglarized a residence tied to the shotgun	The statement was part of investigator testimony and the flow made burglary context clear (no reversible error asserted below)	Counsel was deficient for failing to object; the reference was an improper other-bad-act implication
2. Failure to object to prosecutor’s opening statement that police saw Petitioner leaving	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting when prosecutor told jury police saw Petitioner leave—statement unsupported by trial evidence	Opening may preview expected proof; no evidence at trial supported the statement but State relied on other proof overall	Counsel was deficient for failing to object or later highlight lack of proof in closing because statement was unsupported
3. Failure to preserve cross-examination of key witness about dismissed carjacking	Counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an on-the-record ruling or proffering questions about Green’s dismissed carjacking (possible deal/motivation)	The dismissal occurred morning of trial; trial court limited impeachment; State disputed extent of any deal	Counsel was deficient for failing to preserve the issue and inquire on the record about Green’s motives/awareness
4. Prejudice from cumulative deficiencies	Petitioner argued deficient performance deprived him of a fair trial	State argued overwhelming evidence of guilt eliminated prejudice	No prejudice found — overwhelming evidence (photo ID, fingerprint on shotgun, flight) made relief unwarranted

Key Cases Cited

Ard v. Catoe, 372 S.C. 318, 642 S.E.2d 590 (PCR applicant burden to prove allegations)
Lee v. State, 396 S.C. 314, 721 S.E.2d 442 (appellate deference to PCR factual findings)
Porter v. State, 368 S.C. 378, 629 S.E.2d 353 (deference to PCR court)
Edwards v. State, 392 S.C. 449, 710 S.E.2d 60 (two-part ineffective assistance test discussion)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance standard)
State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428, 683 S.E.2d 275 (other-bad-acts evidence inadmissibility under Rule 404(b))
State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E.2d 180 (scope of opening statement and need for evidentiary support)
Brown v. State, 383 S.C. 506, 680 S.E.2d 909 (improper argument and due process inquiry)
Humphries v. State, 351 S.C. 362, 570 S.E.2d 160 (reversal standard for improper argument)
Smith v. State, 386 S.C. 562, 689 S.E.2d 629 (no prejudice when evidence of guilt is overwhelming)
Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 518 S.E.2d 265 (need to preserve issues on record)
State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187, 600 S.E.2d 100 (flight as evidence of guilt)
State v. Freely, 105 S.C. 243, 89 S.E. 643 (historical recognition of flight as evidence)