State v. Moses, 702 S.E.2d 395

Moses, a special education student, was involved in a cafeteria altercation with a school resource officer and a teacher on September 28, 2006.
Moses signed a Miranda waiver and provided a custodial statement after being read his rights by Officer Smith at the police department.
Moses was indicted for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), malicious injury to property, and disturbing schools; the case proceeded in Greenville County.
The trial court denied defense pretrial motions for Brady disclosure, voluntariness of the statement, and grand jury irregularities; the court also overruled hearsay and relevance objections at trial.
At trial, the jury found Moses guilty of ABHAN and not guilty of disturbing schools; the court imposed the Youthful Offender Act maximum sentence of six years; Moses appeals.
The appellate court affirms, rejecting Moses’ challenges to voluntariness, Brady/Preservation, grand jury, and Rule 613 evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of custodial statement	Moses argues the statement was not freely and voluntarily given.	Moses contends learning-disabled, minor, and unsupervised confession was involuntary.	No abuse of discretion; statement voluntary.
Brady/preservation of evidence	Brady violation due to failure to disclose or preserve surveillance video.	State did not destroy evidence in bad faith; no material Brady impact.	No reversible error; no due process violation.
Grand jury indictment process	Indictments tainted by rapid processing of many indictments in one day.	No irregular grand jury proceedings; regular on face.	No reversible error; indictments valid.
Admission of prior inconsistent statements under Rule 613	Coach Searfoss’s testimony about Gahagan’s prior statement admitted improperly.	Proper foundation laid; extrinsic evidence permissible when not unequivocal admission.	No abuse of discretion; proper foundation and limiting instructions.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court 2010) (unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights required; waiver need not be express)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (due process standard for voluntariness of confessions)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality standard)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality of Brady evidence; reasonable probability of different result)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due process; failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence; bad faith standard)
State v. Kennerly, 331 S.C. 442 (Ct.App.1998) (expands Brady/Rule 5 disclosure concepts in SC)
State v. Mabe, 306 S.C. 355 (412 S.E.2d 386) (preservation duty; exculpatory value standard in SC)
State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526 (552 S.E.2d 300) (no absolute duty to preserve potentially useful evidence)
State v. Thompson, 305 S.C. 496 (409 S.E.2d 420) (presumption of regular grand jury proceedings)
State v. Blalock, 357 S.C. 74 (591 S.E.2d 632) (winess testimony and prior statements; broad admissibility when not unequivocal)