State v. Brockmeyer
406 S.C. 324
| S.C. | 2013Background
- Brockmeyer killed the victim at Jager’s Private Club after an evening of pool and bar seating; the victim used a pellet gun, Brockmeyer carried a .380 pistol; witnesses described Brockmeyer as agitated.
- The shooting occurred with Brockmeyer kneeling beside the victim, whispering, and firing; multiple witnesses observed the actions and Brockmeyer fled to the woods.
- The bar sign-in list and witness accounts placed many people at the scene; Brockmeyer sought information about an anonymous online commenter who posted about the incident.
- Brockmeyer asserted the shooting was an accident and sought the commenter's identity to obtain potential mitigating or defense witnesses.
- The trial admitted various physical and photographic evidence, including a shirt, shell casing, pistol, magazine, projectile, and photos, over defense objections.
- The courtaffirmed Brockmeyer’s murder conviction and weapon charge, rejecting the substantive suppression or Confrontation Clause challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not enforcing the subpoena for anonymous commenter identity | Brockmeyer claims Compulsory Process and Sixth Amendment rights require disclosure | WLTX asserts anonymous speech protection; identity not disclosed | Issue not preserved; harmless error if any |
| Whether the chain-of-custody logs and non-testifying custodians violated the Confrontation Clause | Confrontation Clause requires cross-examination of witnesses handling evidence | Logs are non-testimonial business records; no requirement to call all custodians | No Sixth Amendment violation; admissible under state law; not reversible |
| Whether the admission of non-fungible evidence and related testimony satisfied authentication and foundation | State failed to establish a strict chain of custody beyond fungible items | Items were readily identifiable; defendant admitted possession; proper foundation | Admissible; substantial identity and authentication supported; no reversible error |
| Whether the photographs, including a beloped post-shooting image and a captioned victim’s cell-phone photo, were improperly admitted | Photographs prejudicial; relevant to demeanor and ownership of firearms | Cumulative and harmless; not reversible due to other corroborating evidence | Admission not reversible error; harmless where cumulative or non-prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires testimonial statements to be cross-examined)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (Testimonial certificates require confrontation; business records exception not always testimonial)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (Lab reports may be testimonial; business records approach discussed)
- Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (Four-part test balancing anonymity against defense interests for anonymous commenters)
- State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86 (S.C. 2011) (Chain of custody flexibility; non-testimonial records may be admissible)