State v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina reversed Jeffrey L. Jones's convictions and sentences for two murders, first-degree burglary, armed robbery, and criminal conspiracy. The court held that the trial judge improperly limited cross-examination of an accomplice, admitted unreliable barefoot-insole impression evidence, admitted improper character-related identification testimony, and altered the reasonable-doubt instruction after closing argument. The court also rejected the appellant's penalty-phase challenges concerning crime-scene photographs, video evidence, and the sentencing instruction.

Holdings

1. The trial court committed reversible error under Rule 608(c), South Carolina Rules of Evidence, by refusing to permit Jones to cross-examine Brown about prior plea bargains with the same solicitor's office that would decide whether to seek the death penalty against Brown.
2. The trial court erred in admitting expert testimony purporting to show that Jones's foot was consistent with the primary wearer's impression in a steel-toe boot; the scientific foundation for barefoot insole impression testing was insufficient under Rule 702 and the reliability factors adopted in State v. Jones.
3. The trial court committed reversible error by admitting testimony that Orr gave police Jones's name as someone who might have a grudge against Pipkin.
4. The trial court acted fundamentally unfairly by excising the previously announced 'hesitate to act' language from the reasonable-doubt charge after defense counsel structured and delivered closing argument in reliance on that language.
5. The trial court did not err in admitting the challenged photographs and crime-scene videotape during the penalty phase because they accurately depicted the victims, their injuries, and the circumstances of the crime.
6. Under the court's precedents, the trial court was not required to instruct the penalty-phase jury that, upon finding an aggravating circumstance, its sentencing choices were death or life without possibility of parole.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly limited Jones's cross-examination of accomplice James Brown concerning Brown's prior plea bargains and possible bias or motive.
2. Whether the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony concerning barefoot insole impressions in a boot allegedly connected to Jones.
3. Whether the trial court improperly admitted testimony that Jones was identified to police as someone who might have a grudge against victim Pipkin.
4. Whether the trial court violated fundamental fairness by changing the reasonable-doubt instruction after defense counsel relied on the previously announced instruction in closing argument.
5. Whether the trial court properly admitted photographs and a crime-scene videotape during the penalty phase.
6. Whether the trial court was required to instruct the penalty-phase jury that, upon finding an aggravating circumstance, its sentencing choices were death or life without possibility of parole.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded