State v. Cope
748 S.E.2d 194
S.C.2013Background
- In November 2001 a twelve‑year‑old girl ("Child") was sexually assaulted and murdered in her home; Child’s father, Billy Wayne Cope, was arrested after making multiple confessions and incriminating statements. DNA later showed semen and a bite‑mark saliva belonged to James Sanders, who was also charged and tried jointly with Cope.
- Cope gave multiple recorded written and videotaped statements confessing sexual assault and murder; he later claimed his confessions were false, induced by interrogation, polygraph feedback, and stress.
- Forensic evidence: autopsy established manual strangulation, blunt‑force head injuries, severe genital/anal injury consistent with foreign object penetration, a contemporaneous bite mark (saliva) and semen; DNA matched Sanders, not Cope.
- Cope sought to introduce (1) testimony about four other attacks by Sanders in the neighborhood (reverse 404(b)/third‑party guilt), and (2) inmate James Hill’s proffered testimony that Sanders bragged about raping/killing “a little girl in Rock Hill.” Trial court excluded the 404(b) incidents as insufficiently similar and excluded Hill’s testimony as uncorroborated hearsay; the court also limited Dr. Saul Kassin’s expert testimony by excluding specifics of other false‑confession cases.
- A jury convicted Cope of murder, two counts of first‑degree criminal sexual conduct, conspiracy, and unlawful conduct toward a child; Cope appealed various evidentiary rulings and denial of a directed verdict on conspiracy. The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Cope's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Sanders’ other crimes (reverse 404(b)) | Evidence of Sanders’ four later neighborhood attacks should be admitted to show Sanders acted alone / to support third‑party guilt and rebut conspiracy theory | Incidents were too dissimilar (different victims, no child victims, different M.O., occurred after charged crime); probative value outweighed by prejudice | Exclusion affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion under Rule 404(b); reverse‑404(b) argument not preserved; Holmes due‑process claim fails because exclusion was based on relevance/similarity and prejudice |
| Admissibility of inmate James Hill’s testimony (jailhouse brag) | Hill’s proffered testimony that Sanders bragged about raping/killing a little girl was relevant and admissible under the hearsay‑against‑penal‑interest exception | Testimony lacked corroboration (no time/place/person specificity) and thus was inadmissible hearsay | Exclusion affirmed: testimony held hearsay not sufficiently corroborated under Rule 804(b)(3) |
| Exclusion of specifics of other false‑confession cases for Dr. Kassin | Dr. Kassin should be allowed to describe specific, factually similar false‑confession cases (e.g., Reilly, Gauger) to explain coerced internalized confessions | Specific anecdotes would be prejudicial, sensational, and risk confusing the jury; general expert testimony suffice | Affirmed: trial court within discretion under Rule 403 to exclude case specifics; Kassin allowed to give extensive general expert testimony on false confessions |
| Directed verdict on conspiracy charge | Motion should have been granted because evidence of agreement between Cope and Sanders was speculative and circumstantial | Circumstantial evidence (DNA linking Sanders, lack of forced entry, cluttered home, Cope’s confessions and staging) permits inference of concerted action | Affirmed denial: sufficient circumstantial evidence to submit conspiracy to jury; directed verdict properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (exclusion of third‑party guilt evidence violates due process only when the exclusion rests on strength of prosecution evidence rather than rules excluding unreliable evidence)
- State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 (1923) (Rule 404(b) principle: other‑crime evidence not admissible to prove character to show action in conformity)
- State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148 (2009) (trial court has broad discretion on admissibility; evaluate similarities/dissimilarities for common scheme proof)
- State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40 (2004) (trial courts may exclude specific false‑confession anecdotes; general expert testimony may suffice)
- State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98 (1941) (third‑party guilt evidence admissible only when facts are inconsistent with defendant’s guilt and reasonably infer innocence)
- State v. Kinloch, 338 S.C. 385 (2000) (out‑of‑court statements against penal interest offered to exculpate accused are admissible only if corroborating circumstances clearly indicate trustworthiness)