State v. Hill
394 S.C. 280
S.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Victim, age 11 at trial, testified Hill subjected him to anal intercourse and fellatio in Hill’s basement and in a painting house with another man present.
- Investigator Livingston interviewed Victim and referred him to the Assessment Resource Center; Tony Smith was interviewed but not written statements.
- DVD recording of Victim’s forensic interview was admitted over defense objection; expert testified about coaching indicators.
- Defense argued the DVD admission violated 17-23-175(A) and the Confrontation Clause by limiting cross-examination.
- Other witnesses included the ER physician, a pediatric forensic examiner, and a friend of Hill who observed suspicious behavior.
- Hill was convicted of two counts of CSC with a minor in the first degree and two counts of lewd act upon a child; sentenced to 40 years total.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury pool randomness and cross-section adequacy | Hill contends pool was not broad cross-section | State demonstrates fair, representative venire | No reversible error; no proof of underrepresentation |
| Admission of forensic interview DVD under 17-23-175(A) | DVD admission violated 6th Amendment confrontation rights | Statutory requirements met; cross-examination opportunity preserved | Statutory requirements met; no Confrontation Clause violation |
| Expert testimony about coaching and credibility | Testimony invaded jury’s credibility function | Witness testimony about coaching details is admissible | No reversible error; did not impermissibly bolster or invade jury’s role |
| Mistrial for discovery/Brady issue | State withheld impeachment material; warrants mistrial | No preserved or reversible Brady violation | Issue abandoned on appeal; no ruling on Brady grounds |
| Corroboration instruction and prosecutorial emphasis | No corroboration instruction unduly emphasized | Charge proper; no unduly emphasizing in opening/closing | No reversible error; instruction proper and not unduly emphasized |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Warren, 273 S.C. 159, 255 S.E.2d 668 (1979) (jury drawn from broad cross-section; Sixth Amendment right to jury trial)
- State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5, 482 S.E.2d 760 (1997) (prima facie fair cross-section requires showing of distinctive underrepresentation and systemic exclusion)
- State v. Dawkins, 297 S.C. 386, 377 S.E.2d 298 (1989) (improper vouching by expert witness on victim truthfulness)
- State v. Dempsey, 340 S.C. 565, 532 S.E.2d 306 (Ct.App.2000) (non-credibility opinion by expert improper bolstering)
- State v. Douglas, 380 S.C. 499, 671 S.E.2d 606 (2009) (forensic interviewer testimony did not express belief in victim’s veracity)
- State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 631 S.E.2d 244 (2006) (corroboration rule in misdirection; no improper emphasis by court)
- State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390, 673 S.E.2d 434 (2009) (Confrontation Clause analysis for declarant statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial hearsay rules)
- Martin v. State, 292 S.C. 437, 357 S.E.2d 21 (1987) (confrontation rights and cross-examination essential)