State v. Cartwright, 819 S.E.2d 756

Background

Defendant Harold Cartwright was convicted of multiple counts of first-, second-, and third-degree criminal sexual conduct and numerous lewd-act charges for abuse of his biological daughter and two stepdaughters spanning 1989–2011.
Victims testified to repeated oral and sexual abuse, threats, bribery, and episodes of recantation induced by family pressure; DNA from a bed sheet matched Cartwright.
While jailed and after being served additional warrants, Cartwright attempted suicide; jail staff found him hanging but breathing.
The State sought to introduce the suicide-attempt evidence (including photos) to show consciousness of guilt; the defense objected as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial.
The State also called Dr. Alicia Benedetto as an expert in "child sexual abuse dynamics" to explain typical victim behaviors (delayed disclosure, recantation, grooming); defense objected that she was effectively a forensic interviewer improperly bolstering victims.
The trial court admitted both the suicide-attempt evidence and Dr. Benedetto’s testimony; Cartwright appealed and the South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cartwright)	Held
Admissibility of suicide attempt as evidence of consciousness of guilt	Suicide attempt is circumstantial post-offense conduct probative of guilty conscience	Attempt was irrelevant or explained by other causes (inability to bond, stress, family betrayal); highly prejudicial under Rule 403	Admissible only if (1) attempt occurred, (2) defendant aware of charges at time, and (3) clear-and-convincing nexus to guilty conscience; court applied that test and found evidence admissible here; no limiting jury instruction required
Standard/procedure for admitting suicide-attempt evidence	N/A (State sought admission under existing precedent)	Argued Orozco precedent insufficient; urged exclusion	Court declined Orozco blanket approach; adopted Mann-style framework requiring a pretrial hearing and strict three-factor test; evidence rarely admitted and then subject to Rule 403
Qualification of Dr. Benedetto as expert in "child sexual abuse dynamics"	Her education, training, and extensive forensic-interview experience qualified her to explain behavioral patterns beyond jurors’ knowledge	She was merely a forensic interviewer lacking research background and risked offering impermissible credibility opinions/bolstering	Qualified as an expert in clinical psychology to testify about behavioral characteristics; her testimony did not improperly vouch for victims because she had not interviewed them and did not opine on credibility
Improper bolstering / credibility testimony by expert	Expert’s descriptions explain why victims delay/recant, aiding jury understanding	Testimony mirrored prosecution theory and risked impermissible bolstering	Held testimony permissible when offered in general terms about typical behaviors; experts may not opine on credibility but may explain general dynamics of abused children

Key Cases Cited

State v. Orozco, 392 S.C. 212, 708 S.E.2d 227 (Ct. App.) (admitted suicide-attempt evidence for consciousness of guilt but court here declined to follow it)
State v. Mann, 132 N.J. 410, 625 A.2d 1102 (N.J. 1993) (framework instructing trial courts to hold a hearing and consider alternative motives before admitting suicide-attempt evidence)
State v. Chavis, 412 S.C. 101, 771 S.E.2d 336 (discusses admissibility and reliability standards for non-scientific expert testimony)
State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 352, 737 S.E.2d 494 (cautions against qualification of forensic interviewers as experts when they vouch for child credibility)
State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 523 S.E.2d 787 (permits expert testimony on behavioral characteristics of sexual-assault victims without requiring the expert to have interviewed the victim)
State v. Edwards, 383 S.C. 66, 678 S.E.2d 405 (permitting evidence of witness intimidation or related conduct to show consciousness of guilt)