State v. Hawes, 813 S.E.2d 513

Background

Hawes and the victim (a USC professor) dated; on Aug 28, 2011 Hawes stabbed the victim multiple times, washed and moved her body, and later sought legal help and medical attention for himself; he was arrested and indicted for murder.
Neighbor Kelly Smith heard screaming at 2:29 a.m.; police found the victim dead on a living-room couch at 11:30 a.m.; pathologist attributed death to neck stab wound and multiple other injuries.
At trial Hawes claimed self-defense; jury convicted him of murder and the court sentenced him to life.
Hawes appealed, raising four evidentiary and disqualification claims: (1) admission of gruesome crime‑scene/autopsy/birthday photos, (2) allowing the State to recall Hawes for a single impeachment question and then call an extrinsic witness, (3) admission of testimony about a prior argument between Hawes and the victim (Smith), and (4) refusal to disqualify the Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office.
The circuit court admitted most crime‑scene and autopsy photos as probative of scene and malice, allowed the limited recall and extrinsic statement testimony, admitted Smith’s fuller statement under the rule of completeness, and denied disqualification after the Solicitor’s Office erected an ethical wall.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of victim photographs and video	Photographs (including unclothed body and close‑ups) and a smiling birthday photo were unnecessary and unfairly prejudicial; state’s use appealed to emotion	State: photos/video were relevant to scene, wounds, and malice; probative value outweighed prejudice under Rule 403	Court: most crime‑scene and autopsy photos admissible (probative of scene and malice); birthday photo admission was error but harmless.
Recalling Hawes for one impeachment question and calling Female 1	Recalling Hawes and admitting extrinsic testimony violated Rule 404(b) and was improper	State: Hawes opened the door by testifying; the question was impeachment, and admission of Female 1’s statement was permissible to attack credibility	Court: allowed single question and Female 1’s limited testimony as impeachment (not 404(b)); even if error, admission was harmless in light of overwhelming evidence.
Admission of Smith’s testimony about prior argument and his statement to police	Testimony of a prior argument was prejudicial prior-bad-acts evidence that Hawes did not open the door to	State: Hawes’s cross-examination cast doubt on Smith’s prior statement, invoking Rule 106 (completeness), allowing the State to present omitted parts	Court: Hawes’s cross-examination insinuations opened the door; Rule 106 permitted the State to elicit the fuller statement; admission was proper.
Motion to disqualify Fifth Circuit Solicitor’s Office	Presence of an assistant solicitor and husband as fact witnesses created appearance of impropriety and warranted disqualification	State: assistant solicitor informed office, ethical wall erected, she did not participate in prosecution and need not cause disqualification absent actual prejudice	Court: denied disqualification; South Carolina requires showing of actual prejudice and none was shown.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 763 S.E.2d 22 (superseding Ct. App. review of gruesome photos; trial court discretion in balancing Rule 403)
State v. Gray, 408 S.C. 601, 759 S.E.2d 160 (photographs relevant to malice and admissible when probative value outweighs prejudice)
State v. Michau, 355 S.C. 73, 583 S.E.2d 756 (statements by accused admissible against him; distinction from Rule 404(b) bad‑acts evidence)
State v. Patterson, 367 S.C. 219, 625 S.E.2d 239 (Rule 106/completeness invoked when party challenges omissions in a witness’s prior statement)
State v. Inman, 395 S.C. 539, 720 S.E.2d 31 (no automatic right to disqualify prosecutor’s office when an office member is a witness; must show actual prejudice)
State v. Langley, 334 S.C. 643, 515 S.E.2d 98 (photos irrelevant to guilt may be inflammatory and improperly admitted)
State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 545 S.E.2d 827 (appellate standard: review errors of law only; defer to trial court on factual findings)