State v. Jennings
394 S.C. 473
| S.C. | 2011Background
- Appellant Thomas Edward Jennings was convicted of two counts of lewd acts upon a minor, receiving 55 months and 15 years' imprisonment (consecutive) with probation after service for one count.
- Forensic interviewer Shauna Galloway-Williams conducted interviews with three minor victims (ages 11, 9, 6) who described appellant's touching.
- The State introduced the interviewer's written reports over objection; the trial court admitted them.
- The State also introduced video recordings of the interviews; the children testified after the videos were shown.
- The appellate issue centered on hearsay and vouching concerns in the written reports, and the timing of video admission under § 17-23-175, with the State appealing an overturn of verdict.
- The Supreme Court reversed the convictions due to improper admission of the written reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the forensic reports. | Jennings argues the reports are inadmissible hearsay. | Jennings contends reports improperly bolster and vouch for credibility. | Written reports admitted were improper and not harmless. |
| Timing of video introduction. | State seeks to admit videos before victim testimony under § 17-23-175. | Defense preserved that timing contravened statutory requirements and constitutional rights. | Timely admission upheld; issue not preserved for constitutional review. |
| Harmlessness of the admission of the written reports. | Written reports bolster credibility; error not harmless. | There was overwhelming other evidence; error could be harmless. | Admission not harmless; convictions reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545 (2002) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; error reversible when improper ruling affects outcome)
- Jolly v. State, 314 S.C. 17 (1994) (improper corroboration that is cumulative is per se prejudicial)
- Dawkins v. State, 346 S.C. 151 (2001) (therapist/vouching testimony improper; impact on credibility)
- Smith v. State, 386 S.C. 562 (2010) (forensic interviewer's hearsay testimony impermissibly corroborated victim)
- Dempsey v. State, 340 S.C. 565 (2000) (therapist testimony about truthfulness improper)
- Ellis v. State, 345 S.C. 175 (2001) (officer's improper opinion not harmless where core issues at stake)