Rhodes v. State, 349 S.C. 25

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief to Moscoe Rhodes, who claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to testimony concerning a rumor identifying him as the shooter. The court held the testimony was not hearsay because it was offered to explain the victim's identification process, and concluded that counsel's decision to use the testimony as part of a reasonable defense strategy did not constitute ineffective assistance.

Holdings

1. The testimony was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove that Rhodes committed the crimes; it was offered to explain Cook's identification of Rhodes in the yearbook, which led to the investigation and subsequent photographic identifications.
2. Rhodes failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel articulated an objectively reasonable trial strategy of portraying the information as rumor and using it to create reasonable doubt, and the court found no resulting entitlement to PCR relief.
3. The character-evidence theory was procedurally barred because it was not raised at the PCR hearing or ruled upon by the PCR court. Even assuming the argument could be construed under German, the PCR court correctly denied relief.

Questions Presented

1. Whether testimony that a witness had heard Rhodes was responsible for the shooting was inadmissible hearsay.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to that testimony.
3. Whether Rhodes could obtain relief based on an improper-character-evidence theory when that theory was not raised before or ruled upon by the PCR court.

Disposition

affirmed