State v. Stukes, 787 S.E.2d 480

Victim reported a sexual assault on May 10, 2004; hospital exam collected clothing and vaginal swab; some facial/neck redness noted but no pelvic injury.
A DNA profile from Victim’s underwear was developed in 2005 and matched Stukes in 2007; police arrested Stukes in 2010 after a cold-case investigation.
At trial Victim testified she was assaulted, lost consciousness, and later found her clothes disheveled; she could not positively identify the attacker by sight. Stukes testified the encounter was consensual.
The trial court instructed the jury with S.C. Code § 16-3-657: "The testimony of a victim in a criminal sexual conduct prosecution need not be corroborated by other testimony or evidence," and also gave general credibility instructions.
The jury asked whether the statute "imply[s] that the victim’s testimony must be accepted as being true;" the court recharged general credibility law and the jury returned guilty verdicts for CSC and burglary; Stukes was sentenced to 25 years.
On appeal the court of appeals affirmed; the South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and addressed whether charging § 16-3-657 to the jury is permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether instructing the jury that a CSC victim’s testimony need not be corroborated is a permissible jury instruction	Stukes: the § 16-3-657 instruction is an unconstitutional comment on the facts and confuses the jury, violating the prohibition on judicial comments on facts	State: the statute clarifies legislative intent and may be read to inform juries that convictions may rest solely on victim testimony; prior precedent upheld such charges	The Court reversed: giving § 16-3-657 as a jury charge is an impermissible comment on the facts, confusing, and unconstitutional; precedent approving the charge is overruled
Whether the error was harmless in this case	Stukes: error was prejudicial because case turned on credibility; jury confusion shown by its question	State: evidence (including corroborating witness observations and DNA + inconsistent statements by Stukes) rendered any error harmless	The Court: error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction reversed and remanded for new trial

State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 631 S.E.2d 244 (2006) (upheld prior use of no-corroboration charge but recognized limits on emphasis and overall charge context)
State v. Leonard, 292 S.C. 133, 355 S.E.2d 270 (1987) (jury instructions must enlighten jury and not confuse or mislead)
State v. Curry, 406 S.C. 364, 752 S.E.2d 263 (2013) (appellate review considers charge as whole and requires prejudice for reversal)
Gutierrez v. State, 177 So.3d 226 (Fla. 2015) (no-corroboration instruction improperly bolsters victim testimony and gives it special weight)
Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2003) (no-corroboration charge overemphasized victim testimony and was confusing/misleading)