State v. Evangelista, 2018-000448

Evangelista and the victim (Rebecca Melton) had a tumultuous ~2‑year relationship with repeated domestic incidents; in August 2014 Evangelista smothered Melton with bubble wrap and she died.
Evangelista was indicted for murder, sought pretrial immunity under the South Carolina Protection of Persons and Property Act (stand‑your‑ground).
At the immunity hearing Evangelista sought to present Dr. Lois Veronen to testify about battered person syndrome and his state of mind; the court instructed Evangelista to call the expert but he never did, and the court made no ruling on the expert’s admissibility.
Evangelista also sought to admit evidence that Melton ran a retail refund “scam” and manipulated him into participating; the court excluded that evidence as hearsay/character evidence, not proved by clear and convincing evidence, not relevant to self‑defense, and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403.
The trial court denied immunity, the jury convicted Evangelista of murder, he received 45 years’ imprisonment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Evangelista's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of expert testimony (battered person syndrome) at pretrial immunity hearing	Dr. Veronen’s testimony was relevant to Evangelista’s immunity/self‑defense claim and should have been considered at the immunity hearing	Evangelista failed to present the expert at the hearing and the court made no ruling; the issue is unpreserved on appeal	Unpreserved. Because Evangelista did not call the expert after the court invited him to do so, appellate review is barred.
Admissibility of evidence that victim ran a financial refund “scam” and manipulated Evangelista	Scam evidence shows victim’s manipulation and control, supporting battered person syndrome and self‑defense	Lacks clear and convincing proof, is hearsay/character evidence, not relevant to self‑defense, and is unfairly prejudicial	No abuse of discretion. Trial court properly excluded the evidence: Evangelista failed to meet clear‑and‑convincing proof and the evidence was not sufficiently relevant and was prejudicial under Rule 403.

Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 497 S.E.2d 731 (1998) (issues must be raised and ruled on at trial to be preserved for appeal)
State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 545 S.E.2d 827 (2001) (other crimes or bad acts not resulting in conviction must be proved by clear and convincing evidence to be admissible)
State v. Wiles, 383 S.C. 151, 679 S.E.2d 172 (2009) (evidence is admissible if it tends to make a material fact more or less probable)
State v. Niles, 412 S.C. 515, 772 S.E.2d 877 (2015) (appellate review in criminal cases focuses on errors of law)
State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148, 682 S.E.2d 892 (2009) (trial judge has broad latitude on evidentiary rulings)
State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 631 S.E.2d 262 (2006) (abuse of discretion occurs when trial court’s conclusions lack evidentiary support or rest on legal error)