776 S.E.2d 76
S.C.2015Background
- Appellant was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to life without parole.
- Challenge to constitutionality of S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-175 under Confrontation Clause.
- Appellant contends Witness Smith was improperly qualified as an expert in forensic interviewing and child abuse assessment.
- Appellant alleges Smith’s testimony improperly bolstered the minor’s credibility.
- The minor, who lived with Appellant for about six years, reported abuse starting when she was seven; Appellant denied the allegations.
- The court ultimately reversed the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of § 17-23-175 under Confrontation Clause | Appellant argues no contemporaneous cross-examination via videotape | State argues statute satisfies Crawford and Craig requirements | Statute constitutional |
| Expertise and bolstering by Witness Smith | Smith improperly qualified as expert in child abuse assessment and forensic interviewing; bolstering evident | Smith's qualifications and testimony were proper under the record | Reversed for error in expert qualification and bolstering; conviction and sentence reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (upholds remote testimony with other confrontation safeguards)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes Confrontation Clause requirements for testimonial evidence)
- State v. Hill, 394 S.C. 280 (Ct.App.2011) (limits on bolstering from expert who examined the victim)
- State v. Brown, 411 S.C. 332 (Ct.App.2015) (distinguishes bolstering issues in child abuse cases)
- State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340 (2013) (discusses proper scope of testimony from forensic interviewers)