IN RE ROBERT M

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

22806

Attorney(S)

Deputy Chief Attorney Elizabeth C. Fullwood, of S.C. Office of Appellant Defense, Columbia, for appellant. Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Columbia, and Sol. John R. Justice, Chester, for respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant, Robert M., a minor under sixteen years old, was adjudicated delinquent after being tried and convicted on charges of first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. At the time of the alleged offense, appellant was twelve years old and the complainant was four years old. The trial court committed appellant to the custody of the South Carolina Department of Youth Services for an indeterminate term not to exceed his twenty-first birthday. The appellant challenged the trial court's handling of the competency of the four-year-old witness.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial judge erred by failing to make a preliminary determination of the four-year-old complainant's competency before admitting her testimony.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony from the complainant's parents regarding the child's out-of-court statements accusing appellant of sexual misconduct, given the alleged lack of proper competency determination for the child witness.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The trial judge failed to conduct a proper preliminary competency examination of the four-year-old complainant before admitting her testimony.
The admission of the complainant's parents' testimony about the child's out-of-court statements was improper hearsay because the child did not properly testify due to the lack of competency determination.

State's Arguments

The State conceded that there was no informed exercise of judicial discretion regarding the child's competency.
The State contended that appellant did not make a timely objection to the child's competency, although the record demonstrated otherwise.
The State acknowledged that without proper competency determination, the child's testimony was effectively absent, rendering the parents' testimony inadmissible hearsay.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Pitts, 256 S.C. 420, 182 S.E.2d 738 (1971)	Trial judge's duty to conduct an examination to determine witness competency upon timely objection.	Established that failure to perform such an examination is error; court found trial judge did not satisfy this duty.
State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 230 S.E.2d 618 (1976)	Factors for determining witness competency including age, capacity, and moral/legal accountability.	Reinforced the requirement that trial judge determine competency considering these factors.
State v. Hudnall, 293 S.C. 97, 359 S.E.2d 59 (1987)	Witness qualification is within trial judge's discretion; reversal only for abuse of discretion.	Court held refusal to exercise discretion here was reversible error.
State v. Smith, 276 S.C. 494, 280 S.E.2d 200 (1981)	Abuse of discretion occurs when trial judge refuses to exercise discretionary authority when warranted.	Supported reversal due to trial judge’s failure to conduct competency examination.
State v. Cox, 274 S.C. 624, 266 S.E.2d 784 (1980)	Victim must testify for corroborative evidence of victim's complaint or report to be admissible.	Court ruled parents' testimony inadmissible hearsay absent victim’s proper testimony.
Orangeburg County Department of Social Services v. Schlins, 291 S.C. 477, 354 S.E.2d 388 (1987)	Hearsay rules regarding out-of-court statements.	Supported exclusion of parents' testimony as hearsay without proper victim testimony.
State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987)	Limits on corroborative evidence of complaint or report to time and place matching the charged misconduct.	Noted for guidance on admissibility of complaints or reports in retrial.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found that appellant made a timely and specific objection to the competency of the four-year-old witness. Under State v. Pitts and State v. Green, the trial judge had a mandatory duty to conduct an examination to satisfy himself of the witness's competency before admitting testimony. The trial judge failed to do so, effectively neglecting his judicial duty. Although witness competency determinations are within the trial judge's discretion, refusal to exercise that discretion when warranted constitutes reversible error as established in State v. Hudnall and State v. Smith.

Because the child's testimony was improperly admitted without a proper competency determination, the court concluded that the parents’ testimony about the child's out-of-court statements was inadmissible hearsay, citing State v. Cox and Orangeburg County Department of Social Services v. Schlins. The court emphasized the necessity that the victim testify as a condition precedent to admitting corroborative evidence of the victim's complaint or report.

For the benefit of future proceedings, the court referenced limitations on the admissibility of complaints or reports of sexual misconduct, specifically that corroborative evidence is limited to details identifying the time and place consistent with the charged misconduct, as discussed in State v. Cox and State v. Munn.

On this basis, the court reversed the adjudication of delinquency and the commitment order and remanded the case for a new trial.

Holding and Implications

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

The court held that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a competency examination of the four-year-old witness after a timely objection and by admitting hearsay testimony from the victim's parents in the absence of proper victim testimony. The direct effect of this decision is the reversal of appellant’s adjudication and commitment and the remand for a new trial. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming existing legal principles concerning witness competency and hearsay admissibility in sexual misconduct cases.

Show full summary ...

In re ROBERT M., a minor under the age of sixteen years, Appellant.

Heard Nov. 2, 1987.

Decided Nov. 23, 1987.

HARWELL, Justice:

Appellant was adjudicated delinquent, tried and convicted on charges of first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor. The trial judge committed appellant to the custody of the South Carolina Department of Youth Services for an indeterminant term not to exceed his twenty-first birthday.

At the time of the alleged sexual misconduct, appellant was twelve years old and the alleged victim was four years old. Appellant contends that the trial judge erred in failing to make a preliminary determination of witness competency before considering the testimony of the four-year-old complainant.

In State v. Pitts, 256 S.C. 420, 182 S.E.2d 738 (1971), this Court held that when confronted with a timely objection to witness competency, the trial judge has a duty to "make such examination as will satisfy [him] as to the competency or incompetency of the person to testify, and thereupon to rule on the objection accordingly." Id. at 429, 182 S.E.2d at 743; See also State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 230 S.E.2d 618 (1976) (question of witness competency to be determined by trial judge). In State v. Pitts and State v. Green we specified age, capacity, and moral and legal accountability as factors to be considered by a trial judge in determining witness competency.

The State concedes in its brief, and the following exchange demonstrates, that there was no informed exercise of judicial discretion in ruling upon the witness's competency. The State argues, however, that appellant interposed no timely objection:

Mr. Barfield: I call [the four year old witness].

The Court: I am not going to attempt to even qualify her. (emphasis added).

Mr. Davis: Of course, your Honor, I would register my objection with respect to her age and so forth. She will not be credible and be a reliable witness.

The Court: Well, I respect — she is four years old?

Mr. Davis: Yes, sir.

Mr. Barfield: Can I sit down, your Honor?

The Court: Yes.

The solicitor then elicited testimony from the child implicating appellant in sexual misconduct.

The record clearly reflects that appellant made a timely and sufficiently specific objection to the four-year-old's competency to testify. Equally obvious is the trial judge's failure to carry out his State v. Pitts duty to satisfy himself of the witness's competency.

We recently held that witness qualification is within a trial judge's discretion, and his ruling will be reversed only for an abuse thereof. State v. Hudnall, 293 S.C. 97, 359 S.E.2d 59 (1987). Here the trial judge's refusal to exercise his discretionary authority by means of a competency examination constituted reversible error. See State v. Smith, 276 S.C. 494, 280 S.E.2d 200 (1981) (abuse of discretion to refuse to exercise discretionary authority when it is warranted).

Appellant's next exception alleges trial court error in allowing the four-year-old's parents to testify as to the child's out of court statements accusing appellant of sexual misconduct. The State concedes that since we hold the trial judge did not make a proper competency determination after a timely objection, there was, in effect, no testimony from the four-year-old. The victim must testify as a condition to admitting corroborative evidence of the victim's complaint or report. State v. Cox, 274 S.C. 624, 266 S.E.2d 784 (1980). Thus, the parents' testimony here was inadmissible hearsay. See Orangeburg County Department of Social Services v. Schlins, 291 S.C. 477, 354 S.E.2d 388 (1987).

In the event of retrial we note for benefit of bench and bar the limited admissibility of complaints or reports of sexual misconduct. State v. Cox, supra; See also State v. Munn, 292 S.C. 497, 357 S.E.2d 461 (1987) (corroborative evidence of complaint or report limited to so much of complaint as identifies the time and place with that of misconduct charged).

We reverse the adjudication of delinquency and the commitment order and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

NESS, C.J., and GREGORY, CHANDLER and FINNEY, JJ., concur.