785 S.E.2d 471
S.C.2016Background
- Victim (nearly 14) accused neighbor Susan Tappeiner of sexual assault in Aug. 2008; no physical/DNA evidence; case turned on witness credibility.
- State presented Victim, school resource officer, two police officers, and a rape-crisis counselor (who testified generally about delayed reporting, not about interviewing Victim).
- Defense called only Tappeiner's husband, who testified Tappeiner slept in bed all night, did not wear the clothing Victim described, and would have heard any screaming; he also explained possible unauthorized access to the house via a hideaway key.
- During closing, the solicitor repeatedly vouched for Victim (referencing “face to face, eye to eye” interviews and the counselor’s expertise) and ended by asking jurors if they would let Tappeiner babysit their family—an emotional appeal.
- Trial counsel failed to object to those closing-argument statements; Tappeiner was convicted, abandoned a direct appeal, then sought post-conviction relief (PCR) claiming ineffective assistance.
- The PCR court found counsel deficient for not objecting but held no prejudice; the Supreme Court reversed, finding prejudice and granting a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tappeiner) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the solicitor’s vouching for Victim’s credibility during closing | Counsel’s failure to object allowed improper vouching that invaded the jury’s role and relied on evidence not in the record (e.g., implying the counselor interviewed Victim) | The solicitor’s remarks were permissible credibility argument or responsive to defense; any error was harmless given the record | Court: counsel deficient; vouching was improper, not invited by defense, and prejudicial because the case hinged on credibility and lacked physical corroboration — new trial granted |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the solicitor’s emotional appeal (asking if jurors would let Tappeiner babysit their relatives) | Emotional appeal improperly invoked jurors’ biases and was especially prejudicial where there was no independent physical evidence | State argued the remark was a permissible summation or harmless in context | Court: counsel deficient; emotional plea was improper and, combined with vouching, likely affected outcome — prejudicial and merits new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
- Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 (prosecutorial comments may deny due process if they infect trial with unfairness)
- Vaughn v. State, 362 S.C. 163 (prosecutor may not vouch for witness or place government prestige behind testimony)
- Brown v. State, 383 S.C. 506 (improper emotional appeals; harmlessness depends on strength of other evidence)
- Simmons v. State, 331 S.C. 333 (closing argument must stay within record; consider entire record in prejudice analysis)
- Matthews v. State, 350 S.C. 272 (impermissible vouching when prosecutor implies extrarecord corroboration)