823 S.E.2d 229
S.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- On May 14, 2013, Suzanna Simpson was found injured after her truck left the road; she told a nurse she had shot her husband and children. Police found two children dead and Michael Simpson wounded; a .40 cal handgun was recovered.
- Simpson was indicted for two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime; jury trial June 2016 resulted in convictions and consecutive sentences (life, 30 years, 5 years).
- Defense raised not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity and presented three experts (Drs. Mulbry, Price, Frierson) who diagnosed schizoaffective disorder and opined Simpson could not distinguish right from wrong at the time of the shootings.
- State called Simpson’s treating psychiatrist, Dr. Jeff Smith, in rebuttal; he testified Simpson presented differently in treatment and could distinguish right from wrong; the trial court qualified him as an expert in psychiatry and allowed his testimony.
- Defense objected to Dr. Smith’s testimony on grounds including lack of forensic qualification, discovery/Brady violations, privacy/Fourth Amendment issues arising from how medical records reached SLED, and hearsay; trial court overruled objections.
- Post-trial, Simpson appealed arguing (1) improper admission of Dr. Smith’s testimony, (2) improper exclusion of Dr. Price’s testimony about statements by Dr. Smith, and (3) insufficiency of the evidence (denial of directed verdict). The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualification of Dr. Smith to give opinion on sanity/forensic issues | Dr. Smith (treating psychiatrist) not qualified as forensic psychiatrist to opine whether Simpson knew right from wrong | State: treating psychiatrist may opine; qualification is within trial court discretion; jury weighs weight | Trial court did not abuse discretion; Dr. Smith qualified as psychiatry expert and could testify on capacity to know right/wrong |
| Admissibility of Dr. Smith’s testimony (discovery/Brady) | State violated Rule 5 and Brady by not disclosing basis of Dr. Smith’s opinion | State: records were in defense possession (HIPAA release) and Rule 5/Brady do not require disclosure of an unwritten expert basis under these facts | No Brady/Rule 5 violation; admission not prejudicial |
| Admissibility of Dr. Smith’s testimony (privacy/Fourth Amendment) | Medical records were obtained improperly by SLED; testimony should be excluded | State: Simpson waived privilege by releasing records to defense experts and opening mental-health defense; no suppression hearing sought | Waiver of privilege; no prejudice shown; Fourth Amendment suppression claim not preserved/supported |
| Exclusion of Dr. Price testimony re: Dr. Smith’s statements (hearsay) | Dr. Price may testify about what he relied on, including Dr. Smith’s agreement | State: testimony was hearsay and would impermissibly bolster credibility | Court properly excluded; testimony was hearsay/admissible-exception not applicable |
| Denial of directed verdict (sufficiency of evidence) | Insufficient evidence to prove sanity beyond reasonable doubt; State needed expert evidence in case-in-chief | State: sanity presumed; insanity is affirmative defense; State may rely on lay testimony and rebuttal expert | Viewing evidence favorably to State, jury could find Simpson knew right/wrong; directed verdict denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jenkins, 412 S.C. 643, 773 S.E.2d 906 (appellate standard review in criminal cases)
- State v. Martin, 391 S.C. 508, 706 S.E.2d 40 (expert qualification standards)
- State v. Lewis, 328 S.C. 273, 494 S.E.2d 115 (jury may decide insanity from lay or expert testimony)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution duty to disclose favorable material evidence)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine for Fourth Amendment exclusion)