Teamer v. State, 786 S.E.2d 109

Background

Nathaniel Teamer was convicted of first-degree burglary, felony DUI causing great bodily injury, and failure to stop for a blue light (FSBL); PCR court granted relief on four ineffective-assistance grounds; South Carolina Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
Facts: early-morning incident—Teamer fled an initial traffic stop, was pursued, and later collided head-on with another car; victims identified Teamer at the scene; Teamer was taken to the hospital and later charged with felony DUI after toxicology showed marijuana and some alcohol.
At the scene and immediately after the crash, some officers did not activate or record video; the DUI videotaping statute (S.C. Code §56-5-2953) generally requires recording but contains exceptions.
Trial evidence: multiple witnesses (victims) identified Teamer as the intruder in the burglary; one witness (Erica) had prior convictions (used partly at trial; one 1995 conviction for giving false information surfaced at PCR).
PCR court found trial counsel deficient for (1) not moving to dismiss DUI for lack of video, (2) failing to impeach Erica with the 1995 conviction, (3) not moving for a directed verdict on burglary, and (4) not objecting to a jury instruction; the Supreme Court reversed each relief award.

Issues

Issue	Teamer's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss the felony DUI for lack of required video	Counsel should have moved to dismiss because no recording was produced, so charge required dismissal	Subsection (B) of §56-5-2953 excuses recording under these facts (traffic-accident and totality exceptions); affidavit not required for all exceptions; dismissal unlikely	Denied relief — exceptions (traffic-accident and totality) apply; no automatic dismissal and PCR court erred in requiring an affidavit for all exceptions
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Erica with a 1995 conviction for giving false information	Failure to use the conviction for impeachment was deficient and likely prejudicial to identity evidence	Other strong ID evidence and prior impeachment already used; adding this conviction would not create reasonable probability of different result	Denied relief — possible deficiency, but no prejudice given multiple identifications and existing impeachment
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict on burglary	Counsel should have moved because Teamer claimed he had permission to enter the home	Viewing evidence in State’s favor, there was substantial evidence of forcible entry and robbery; directed verdict would be denied	Denied relief — as a matter of law directed verdict would have been denied; no deficiency
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to jury charge that jury should reach the "truth" and be "fair"	Failure to object preserved issue for appeal and was ineffective because instruction risked shifting burden	At trial time, no controlling case prohibited such charge; counsel is not required to anticipate changes in law	Denied relief — counsel not deficient; cannot be expected to foresee later appellate rulings

Key Cases Cited

City of Rock Hill v. Suchenski, 374 S.C. 12, 646 S.E.2d 879 (statute allows dismissal for videotaping violations unless subsection (B) excuses noncompliance)
Town of Mount Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 713 S.E.2d 278 (interprets subsection (B) exceptions and that affidavits are not required for all exceptions)
State v. Henkel, 413 S.C. 9, 774 S.E.2d 458 (traffic-accident exception excuses videotaping until practicable)
Dawkins v. State, 346 S.C. 151, 551 S.E.2d 260 (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
Edwards v. State, 392 S.C. 449, 710 S.E.2d 60 (applicant must show would have created reasonable doubt on guilt)
Huggler v. State, 360 S.C. 627, 602 S.E.2d 753 (failure to object or impeach may be inconsequential where State presents overwhelming evidence)
State v. Daniels, 401 S.C. 251, 737 S.E.2d 473 (criticizes jury charges suggesting duty to render a verdict that is "just" or "fair")
Gilmore v. State, 314 S.C. 453, 445 S.E.2d 454 (counsel need not foresee changes in law or be clairvoyant)