State v. Perry, 842 S.E.2d 654

Wallace Steve Perry was tried and convicted for two counts each of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct for assaulting two biological daughters; the court sentenced him to 30 years. The court of appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
At trial the State introduced, over Perry's Rule 404(b) objection, testimony from a former stepdaughter that Perry had sexually assaulted her 22–27 years earlier; the State relied on the “common scheme or plan” exception and on State v. Wallace.
The three victims’ accounts differed in timing, frequency, location, and use of force: Daughter Two alleged repeated digital penetration and two oral assaults from ages ~5–16 with physical restraint; Daughter Three alleged ~5 digital-penetration incidents beginning about age 10–11 with no force; the stepdaughter alleged repeated assaults from about age 9–13/14 (≈20 incidents), including one bathtub incident and threats.
The trial court admitted the stepdaughter’s testimony; the State did not articulate a specific non‑propensity fact or element the testimony made more probable beyond similarity; the stepdaughter was never criminally charged for that conduct.
The Supreme Court majority held the admission was error: it overruled State v. Wallace (and State v. Hallman insofar as inconsistent) and reaffirmed Lyle’s "logical connection" test for the Rule 404(b) common‑scheme exception, reversing and remanding for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility under Rule 404(b) (common scheme/plan) — whether stepdaughter testimony was admissible to show a common scheme or plan	State: the prior abuse was substantially similar and therefore admissible under Wallace as probative of a common scheme or plan	Perry: the prior abuse was too dissimilar and the proffered testimony served only to show propensity, so it should be excluded under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403	Court: reversed — similarity alone is insufficient; State failed to show a logical connection to a material fact other than propensity, so the testimony was improperly admitted and a new trial is required
Precedential standard — whether Wallace’s “similarity‑only” approach controls admissibility	State: Wallace permits admission based on a close degree of similarity between acts	Perry: Wallace improperly lowers the Rule 404(b) burden and permits propensity evidence	Court: overruled Wallace (and Hallman to the extent inconsistent); reaffirmed Lyle’s "logical relevancy/connection" standard and required a non‑propensity legitimate purpose plus Rule 403 balancing

Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948) (discusses prohibition on using other‑acts to prove propensity)
State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406 (1923) (seminal South Carolina test: other‑act evidence admissible only if it has a logical relevancy/connection to a material issue)
State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428 (2009) (prior rule holding that close similarity alone can satisfy common‑scheme connection; overruled)
State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389 (1984) (upheld other‑act evidence where defendant used a particularly unique and repeated method/common plan)
State v. Benton, 338 S.C. 151 (2000) (illustrates permissible use of prior convictions to prove elements when purpose is non‑propensity)
United States v. Krezdorn, 639 F.2d 1327 (5th Cir. 1981) (rejecting admission of similar crimes when used only to show propensity)