State v. RiddleState v. Riddle
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Harwell
Appellant Ernest M. Riddle (Riddle) was convicted of murder, burglary and armed robbery. He was sentenced to death for murder, to life imprisonment for burglary and to 25 years for armed robbery.
This case consolidates Riddle’s appeal and our mandatory review of the death sentenсe pursuant to
FACTS
Riddle and his 17-year-old brother, Jason Riddle (Jason), 1 broke into the Gaffney hоme of Abbie Sue Mullinax during the early morning hours of August 8,1985. Riddle remained in the kitchen while Jason entered Mrs. Mullinax’s bedroom and took money from her pursе. Jason stumbled on the way back to the kitchen, awakening Mrs. Mullinax and her stepdaughter, Marie Osment. Mrs. Mullinax went to investigate and screamed when she saw the intruders. Riddle cut Mrs. Mullinax’s throat with a knife he found in the kitchen. He and Jason then escaped through a window. Mrs. Mullinax died shortly thereafter оf exsanguination.
Riddle and Jason later went to the home of Jimmy and Tammy Lewis, at which their older brother Bruce Riddle (Bruce) was living. Bruce noticеd that Riddle was wet and bloody from the knees down, and appeared “edgy.” The next morning, while watching an account of the killing on televi *234 sion, Riddle remarked “we don’t have to worry about that bitch no more.” Bruce later informed the police his brothers were involved in the killing.
ISSUES
1. Did the triаl judge err in limiting the cross-examination of Bruce as to whether he had previously stated he was paid for his testimony?
2. Did the trial judge err in the sentencing phase by excluding opinion evidence of a psychologist as to Riddle’s future adaptability in prison life?
3. Did the trial judge err by admitting Riddle’s juvеnile record as evidence in aggravation of punishment when the State had not given Riddle notice of its intent to introduce the evidenсe?
I. CROSS-EXAMINATION
Bruce was called as a witness for the State at trial. During cross-examination he denied ever telling anyone he was paid to give a statement in this case. Defense counsel placed Bruce on notice he planned to impeach this denial with testimony of Mary Riddle, the stepmother of all three Riddle brothers.
In an attempt to impeach his credibility further, Bruce was asked by one of Riddle’s cоunsel, Kenneth Holland, whether he remembered having a conversation with Arthur Shemwell, Riddle’s co-counsel. Bruce replied that he remembered talking with Mr. Shemwell about a week before, while he was in the Union County jail. Bruce was then asked if “[a]t that time was the proposition that yоu’d been paid to testify brought up?” Bruce replied affirmatively and the State immediately objected to the line of questioning.
Out of the presence of the jury, the trial judge expressed his concern that Mr. Shemwell would have to withdraw from the case if he intended to testify as an imрeachment witness. Seé DR 5-102(A), Code of Professional Responsibility, Supreme Court Rule 32. Mr. Holland acquiesced in the ruling, stating that he had intended to go nо further than the affirmative answer to the question quoted above. Mr. Shem-well did not attempt to withdraw from his representation of Riddle, nor was аny proffer of his impeachment testimony made.
*235 Mrs. Riddle was later called as an impeachment witness. She testified that on September 10,1985, Bruce told her that his brothers did not kill Mrs. Mullinax, but that he had “turned them in” for the reward money. She also testified that Bruce showed her the money he had rеceived.
Riddle contends the limitation of cross-examination as to the conversation with Mr. Shemwell violated his right of confrontation. The .State counters there was no error because the question by which Riddle’s counsel desired to impeach Bruce had been askеd and answered affirmatively. Counsel clearly stated he did not wish to pursue the matter of the Union County jail conversation further. Mr. Shemwell did not оffer to withdraw. Under the doctrine of in favorem, vitae we have a duty to search the .record for prejudicial error committed by the trial court. See State v. Shaw, 273 S. C. 194, 255 S. E. (2d) 799, cert. denied, 444 U. S. 957, 100 S. Ct. 437, 62 L. Ed. (2d) 329 (1979); State v. Lucas, 285 S. C. 37, 328 S. E. (2d) 63, cert. denied, 472 U. S. 1012, 105 S. Ct. 2714, 86 L. Ed. (2d) 729 (1985). We are not required, however, to review the strategic decisions of defense counsel. We find no error.
II. FUTURE ADAPTABILITY
At the sentencing phase of trial, Riddle proffеred the expert opinion testimony of a clinical psychologist who had conducted an evaluation of him relative to his potential to adapt to prison life. The proffer was made in the form of a written report which recitéd Riddle’s personality charaсteristics as constructed from a battery of psychological tests. The report concludes with the opinion that Riddle is “very likely to adapt reasonably to prison life.”
The trial judge ruled that, under South Carolina precedent, the testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible.
In State v. Patterson, 290 S. C. 523, 351 S. E. (2d) 853 (1986), and State v. Matthews, - S. C. -, 353 S. E. (2d) 444 (1986), this identiсal issue was presented. In both cases, we held that exclusion of expert opinion evidence relative to a defendant’s futurе adaptability to life in prison was reversible error under Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. _, 106 S. Ct. 1669. 90 L. Ed. (2d) 1 (1986). See also Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 98 S. Ct. 2954, 57 L. Ed. (2d) 973 (1978); *236 Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 102 S. Ct. 869, 71 L. Ed. (2d) 1 (1982).
Here, again, we hold the exclusion of the testimony was ¡reversible error under Skipper.
III. JUVENILE RECORD
At thе sentencing phase, the State sought to introduce Riddle’s juvenile record. Riddle objected on the ground the State had failed to prоvide notice of its intention to offer this evidence. Citing State v. Plath, 277 S. C. 126, 284 S. E. (2d) 221 (1981), the trial judge overruled the objection. The records of Riddle’s three juvenile adjudiсations of delinquency were published to the jury and submitted as an exhibit.
Riddle contends the State’s failure to give notice violates Criminal Practice Rule 8 and
Rule 8(a)(1)(B) provides:
Upon request of the defendant, the prosecution shall furnish to the defendant such copy of his criminal record, if any, аs is within possession, custody or control of the prosecution, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the prosecution.’
Riddle filed a Rule 8 discovery request shortly after his arrest.
We agree the State’s omission violated Rule 8 and
The State contends
We hold the admission of Riddle’s juvenile record as evidence in aggravation was error. The State failed to give written notice prior to trial as required by
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
Harwell, J., not participating.
Notes
Jason also was charged with murder, burglary and armed robbery. He pleaded guilty and received two terms of life imprisonment and 25 years.