State v. Fonseca
393 S.C. 229
S.C.2011Background
- State charged Fonseca with lewd act with a minor for two incidents (2001 and 2003) but proceeded on the 2003 allegation.
- Victim, the minor and sister-in-law of Fonseca, testified about both the 2003 and 2001 incidents at trial.
- Circuit court admitted the 2001-incident testimony under Rule 404(b) and Lyle as motive/intent evidence.
- Trial resulted in Fonseca’s conviction and 15-year sentence.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding the 2001 testimony was improperly admitted under Nelson and not harmless, and rejected common-scheme arguments.
- South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the 2001 evidence was improperly admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under Rule 404(b) | State contends 2001 incident admissible for motive/intent. | Fonseca contends not admissible under Nelson; improper motive/intent evidence with remoteness issues. | Not admissible for motive/intent under 404(b). |
| Common scheme or plan exception | State argues similarities show a common scheme/plan. | Fonseca argues insufficient similarity and undue remoteness. | Not admissible under common scheme/plan. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nelson, 331 S.C. 1, 501 S.E.2d 716 (1998) (limits use of motive/intent evidence in sex offenses)
- State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428, 683 S.E.2d 275 (2009) (factors for determining close similarity in common-scheme analysis)
- State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923) (admissibility of other-crimes evidence for purposes other than propensity)