State v. Baker, 769 S.E.2d 860

Mark Baker was indicted and later convicted on four counts of committing a lewd act upon a minor; convictions affirmed by Court of Appeals and reviewed by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Original arrest warrants alleged specific summer windows (2002, 2003, 2004); after further victim memory, the State obtained amended indictments alleging conduct between June 1, 1998 and September 1, 2004 (a ~6-year period) shortly before trial.
Baker moved to quash the amended indictments as overbroad and vague; the trial court denied the motion and the jury convicted on four lewd-act counts; Baker received an aggregate 30-year sentence.
On certiorari review the primary question was whether the indictments were constitutionally sufficient given the expansive, non-specific six-year time frame; a secondary issue (expert qualification of a forensic interviewer) was preserved but not reached as dispositive relief was granted.
The Supreme Court held the indictments were unconstitutionally overbroad because the six-year, non-specific time period deprived Baker of adequate notice and ability to determine whether he could plead acquittal (i.e., prepare an effective defense), and reversed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether indictments alleging offenses over an unspecified six-year period were constitutionally sufficient	State: time not an element of lewd-act offense; indictments tracked statutory language and occurred before grand jury returned amended indictments, so they were sufficient	Baker: six-year, non-specific period prevented meaningful notice and made preparing an alibi/defense virtually impossible, causing prejudice	Reversed: six-year non-specific period was unconstitutionally overbroad and prejudicial; indictments must provide sufficient specificity to allow defendant to know whether he may plead acquittal
Whether qualifying a forensic interviewer as an expert was proper	State: proffered qualifications and training justified expert status to explain interview methodology	Baker: expert qualification risked improper bolstering of victim testimony and ran afoul of evidentiary limits	Not reached on merits (court reversed on indictment issue); Court noted prior precedent disfavoring forensic interviewer as expert but did not decide here

State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93 (2005) (sets standards for indictment sufficiency and notice/preparation analysis)
State v. Tumbleston, 376 S.C. 90 (Ct.App. 2007) (indictments with extended time periods may be sufficient when surrounding circumstances warrant)
State v. Wade, 306 S.C. 79 (1991) (rejects per se overbreadth rule for lengthy time periods; courts must examine surrounding circumstances for prejudice)
State v. Robbins, 275 S.C. 373 (1980) (explains alibi defense must cover the entire time alleged and be specific)
State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340 (2013) (states forensic interviewers generally should not be qualified as expert witnesses)
State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1 (2001) (standard of review in criminal appeals: errors of law reviewed de novo; factual findings sustained unless clearly erroneous)