840 S.E.2d 551
S.C.2020Background
- Robert Jared Prather and Joshua Phillips were implicated in the beating and death of Gerald Stewart; Victim was found kneeling face‑down on a couch, head covered by a pillow, body covered by a blanket, the word "rapist" carved on his back, and a dildo beneath his armpit.
- Prather and Phillips went to the ER early morning after the incident; Prather made statements to an ER nurse and officers acknowledging he had beaten Victim; Phillips later pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter and armed robbery.
- At Prather's second trial, after the defense rested, the State called SLED Agent Paul LaRosa in reply as a crime‑scene analyst; LaRosa testified the scene showed "staging" (carving, dildo) and "undoing" (covering), indicating two distinct actors/personalities present after the crime.
- Prather objected that LaRosa's testimony was improper reply, unqualified, unreliable, and invaded the jury's province; the trial court admitted the testimony but instructed no opinion as to who committed acts.
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed, holding the reply testimony was improper and not harmless; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals, reinstating convictions.
- The Supreme Court also rejected Prather's additional claims: Confrontation Clause challenge to a redacted cutout from Phillips' statement, directed‑verdict argument, hearsay ruling excluding a deceased witness's statement, and preservation issues for prosecutorial‑misconduct claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Prather) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of LaRosa reply testimony | Reply was proper to rebut Prather's testimony that only Phillips remained alone with Victim; testimony explained conflicting inferences from scene | Reply exceeded rebuttal, presented new forensic theory and "sandbagged" defense; should have been part of case‑in‑chief | Admitted: trial court did not abuse discretion; LaRosa's testimony was rebuttal and arguably contradictory to Prather's account |
| Expert qualification & reliability (Rule 702) | LaRosa was qualified by training/experience; his non‑scientific crime‑scene analysis met reliability gatekeeping | Crime‑scene analysis / profiling is unvalidated and speculative; testimony invaded jury province | Admitted: court found LaRosa qualified and his opinions (limited to number of persons/patterns) sufficiently reliable; not a forbidden criminal profile |
| Confrontation Clause re: Phillips' handwritten cutout "rapeist" | Redacted single word was nontestimonial and did not facially incriminate Prather | Cutout derived from Phillips' out‑of‑court statement; admission violated right to confront | Denied: redaction left only a single word that did not itself testimonially incriminate Prather; no Bruton violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence / directed verdict | Jury could infer Prather's assault proximately contributed to death (autopsy, injuries, statements) | Evidence only showed mere suspicion; death could be from preexisting conditions/drugs | Denied: view evidence most favorable to State; substantial circumstantial and direct evidence supported submission to jury |
| Admission of deceased witness Becknell's written statement | State argued hearsay; trial court excluded | Prather argued statement (Victim told Becknell ribs hurt) admissible as present sense impression or excited utterance | Denied: Becknell's report to police did not meet hearsay exceptions; exclusion proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tapp, 398 S.C. 376, 728 S.E.2d 468 (S.C. 2012) (crime‑scene analysis is nonscientific expert testimony requiring Rule 702 reliability review)
- State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 676 S.E.2d 684 (S.C. 2009) (nonscientific expert testimony must satisfy qualifications and reliability)
- State v. McDowell, 272 S.C. 203, 249 S.E.2d 916 (S.C. 1978) (reply testimony may be proper where defendant's testimony creates need for rebuttal)
- State v. Commander, 396 S.C. 254, 721 S.E.2d 413 (S.C. 2011) (expert may not opine on defendant's state of mind or guilt)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (admission of nontestifying codefendant's confession that expressly incriminates defendant violates Confrontation Clause)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause analysis)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1987) (redaction that removes defendant's name may avoid Bruton rule if statement does not on its face incriminate)