State v. Deipo Derrick Lewin, 2019-001775

Appellant Deipo Derrick Lewin was convicted of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and sentenced to 90 months' imprisonment.
At trial, Lewin sought to admit testimony about specific prior violent acts by the victim to support his claim of self-defense.
The trial court excluded the witness’s testimony about those specific prior acts, finding they were not closely connected in time or occasion to the charged offense and therefore not probative of the victim’s state of mind or of a reasonable apprehension of harm.
Lewin appealed, arguing the exclusion deprived him of evidence relevant to self-defense.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the exclusion for abuse of discretion and affirmed, applying South Carolina precedent limiting admission of specific-acts evidence about a victim’s violence unless closely connected in time or directed at the defendant (or otherwise meeting narrow exceptions).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victim's specific prior violent acts as evidence of self-defense	State: exclusion proper because prior acts were not closely connected in time or occasion and thus inadmissible character evidence	Lewin: prior violent acts were relevant to victim's propensity for violence and his state of mind, supporting self-defense	Court affirmed exclusion; no abuse of discretion because prior acts were not closely connected or shown to put Lewin on notice

State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201 (2006) (admission of evidence is within trial court’s discretion; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410 (2000) (specific instances of a victim’s violence admissible only if directed at defendant or closely connected in time/occasion to show state of mind or reasonable apprehension)
State v. Mekler, 368 S.C. 1 (Ct. App. 2005) (prior violent act less than three months before the crime admissible where closely connected in time to show state of mind)
State v. McCray, 413 S.C. 76 (Ct. App. 2015) (specific act not admissible where defendant showed no awareness of the victim’s prior act)