748 S.E.2d 236
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellant Darren Gerome Scott was convicted of three counts of a lewd act upon a child and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.
- The State introduced 404(b) bad-act witnesses to prove a common scheme or plan, over Appellant's objection that the acts were too remote and dissimilar.
- Three Victims (1–3) and Victim 4 (Appellant’s eight-year-old daughter) were involved in abuse allegations spanning 1998–2008; two additional witnesses testified about abuse in 1987 when they were eight.
- The trial court admitted the 404(b) testimony after finding substantial similarity and balance against unfair prejudice; the judge planned to reassess before the witnesses testified.
- Appellant contends the bad-act evidence was not sufficiently similar and was too remote in time to be probative.
- Convictions and consecutive sentences totaled 90, 90, 90, and 110 months in prison.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 404(b) witnesses were admissible for common scheme. | Scott; argues insufficient similarity to charged crimes. | Scott; arguing remoteness and prejudice reduce probative value. | Yes; evidence showed a close degree of similarity sufficient for common scheme. |
| Whether temporal remoteness and 403 balancing invalidated admission. | State contends remoteness does not require exclusion and probative value remains high. | Scott argues the time gap diminishes probative value and increases prejudice. | No; remoteness did not render evidence inadmissible; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clasby, 385 S.C. 148 (2009) (establishes framework for Rule 404(b) admissibility and similarity)
- Wallace v. State, 384 S.C. 428 (2009) (close degree of similarity standard for common scheme)
- State v. Taylor, 399 S.C. 51 (Ct.App. 2012) (set of factors for assessing similarity in 404(b))
- State v. Gillian, 373 S.C. 601 (2007) (Rule 403 balancing framework for prejudice vs. probative value)
- State v. Hallman, 298 S.C. 172 (1989) (remoteness acceptable for common-scheme proof)
