State v. Kromah

401 S.C. 340 (2013) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · January 23, 2013

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court considered whether objections to testimony concerning a child victim's out-of-court statements were preserved for appellate review. The court held that the objections were preserved, that the investigator's testimony was not inadmissible hearsay, and that any error in admitting the forensic interviewer's testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the judgment in result.

Holdings

  1. The hearsay objection was preserved because the trial court's ruling immediately before the testimony was a final ruling, and the testimony followed without intervening evidence.
  2. The objection to the investigator's testimony was preserved because the trial transcript and context sufficiently apprised the trial court that the objection renewed the previously asserted hearsay argument.
  3. The investigator's testimony was not inadmissible hearsay because he did not repeat any statement made by the child; the testimony described his investigative process and actions based on the information he gathered.
  4. The forensic interviewer should not have been permitted to testify that she made a compelling finding of physical child abuse because that testimony was the equivalent of stating that the child was telling the truth.
  5. The error in admitting the forensic interviewer's testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not require reversal.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Kromah preserved her hearsay objection to the testimony of the forensic interviewer and investigator concerning actions taken after their interviews with the child.
  2. Whether the investigator's testimony that he interviewed the child and arrested Kromah based on his investigation constituted inadmissible hearsay.
  3. Whether the forensic interviewer's testimony that she made a compelling finding of physical child abuse improperly vouched for the child's credibility.
  4. If admission of the forensic interviewer's testimony was error, whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (23)

  • State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 632 S.E.2d 845 (2006)(followed)
  • State v. Wiles, 383 S.C. 151, 679 S.E.2d 172 (2009)(followed)
  • State v. Forrester, 343 S.C. 637, 541 S.E.2d 837 (2001)(followed)
  • State v. Mueller, 319 S.C. 266, 460 S.E.2d 409 (Ct. App. 1995)(followed)
  • State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 710 S.E.2d 55 (2011)(followed)
  • South Carolina Department of Social Services v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 355 S.E.2d 543 (Ct. App. 1987)(considered)
  • State v. Weaver, 361 S.C. 73, 602 S.E.2d 786 (Ct. App. 2004)(applied by analogy)
  • State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16, 558 S.E.2d 518 (2002)(applied by analogy)
  • In re K.K.C., 728 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa Ct. App. 2006)(descriptive)
  • State v. Borden, 986 So. 2d 158 (La. Ct. App. 2008)(descriptive)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…