State v. Kromah
401 S.C. 340
| S.C. | 2013Background
- Kromah, stepmother to a three-year-old, was convicted of great bodily injury to a child and unlawful neglect.
- Victim did not testify; two State witnesses testified about actions taken after hearsay conversations with the child.
- Child was injured Aug. 16, 2005; medical experts diagnosed non-accidental trauma with a clean, straight-edged scrotal wound.
- Defense argued witnesses Smith (forensic interviewer) and Livingston (investigator) relied on the Child’s hearsay statements.
- Trial court initially limited hearsay testimony but ultimately admitted portions of both witnesses’ testimony; appellate courts retained issues for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of hearsay issue | Kromah preserved issue via timely objections. | State asserts issue not preserved; the trial court’s rulings foreclose reconsideration. | Issue preserved for review. |
| Admissibility of Livingston’s testimony | Livingston’s testimony relied on information from the Child’s statements; improper hearsay. | Testimony describes investigative process and did not repeat Child’s statements; admissible as non-hearsay or excited utterance. | Admissible; no error or harmless if any. |
| Admissibility of Smith’s testimony about a ‘compelling finding’ | Smith improperly vouched for credibility and stated a compelling finding. | Expert testimony as to child’s abuse from a forensic interview is allowed under rules, within limits. | Admission erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Harmlessness of Smith’s testimony error | Error could have affected the verdict. | Evidence overwhelmingly supported abuse; error harmless. | Error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424 (S.C. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. Wiles, 383 S.C. 151 (S.Ct. 2009) (final ruling on motion in limine permits immediate objection exception)
- State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438 (S.Ct. 2011) (sufficient specificity to preserve objection to evidence)
- State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473 (S.C. 2011) (forensic interviewer reports; ‘compelling finding’ improper; error harmless or not)