State v. Reyes, 853 S.E.2d 334

Background

Minor (alleged victim) reported sexual abuse by Jose Reyes Reyes that occurred when she was six; reported in Aug 2013; trial held when she was nine.
Reyes was indicted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor; he testified and denied the allegations; jury convicted.
No direct physical evidence of abuse; both Minor and Reyes tested positive for HSV‑1; medical testimony offered equivocal transmission explanations.
At trial the State called Minor first; in the jury's presence the solicitor asked foundational questions about truth/lie and used first‑person phrasing (“we”); defense objected to bolstering.
The trial court, in the jury’s presence, commented under Rule 601 that Minor was competent unless disqualified; defense preserved objection to bolstering.
Court of Appeals affirmed; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether the in‑court competency colloquy/ruling in front of the jury was improper and (2) whether the solicitor’s first‑person questioning impermissibly bolstered Minor’s credibility.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court improperly conducted/ruled on competency in front of the jury	Reyes: the colloquy and the court's remark that Minor was "competent unless otherwise disqualified" amounted to a competency hearing in view of the jury and impermissibly vouched for credibility	State: the court merely stated Rule 601 (presumption of competency) neutrally; no vouching	Court: a reasonable juror would not view the Rule 601 statement as indicating the judge believed Minor was truthful; no reversible error on that point
Whether the solicitor’s use of first‑person questions (“we”/“we're”) improperly bolstered the child witness	Reyes: first‑person phrasing signaled the prosecutor’s belief in the witness’s truthfulness and impermissibly vouched for credibility	State: foundational truth/lie questioning is appropriate for assessing a child witness; the Kelly line is distinguishable	Court: first‑person questions were improper (violated rule against bolstering) but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the jury charge cured any prejudice
Whether any error was harmless given the evidence (HSV‑1, disclosures)	Reyes: errors harmed his right to a fair trial; evidence was not overwhelming	State: evidence (disclosures + HSV‑1 concordance) was overwhelming, so any error was harmless	Court: evidence was not overwhelming (medical testimony equivocal), but the court’s detailed credibility jury charge—especially instruction about evaluating child testimony—cured any prejudice; overall error harmless

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pitts, 256 S.C. 420 (court determines witness competency is for the trial judge)
Tappeiner v. State, 416 S.C. 239 (credibility is for the jury; court may not vouch)
State v. Kelly, 343 S.C. 350 (first‑person questioning by prosecutor can improperly bolster witness credibility)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors)
State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604 (asking a witness whether they will tell the truth does not necessarily constitute impermissible vouching)