The Care & Treatment of Way v. State

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that the State should not have cross-examined Way about his evaluation by a non-testifying psychiatric expert and should not have invoked the missing witness rule regarding that expert. The court nevertheless found the errors harmless and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision as modified. The State’s cross-petition for certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted.

Holdings

1. The State should not have been permitted to question Way about his retention of Dr. Martin, because the probative value of that evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence.
2. The missing-witness rule should be limited to fact witnesses and should not be invoked against medical, psychological, psychiatric, or similar medical expert opinion witnesses.
3. The errors in allowing the questioning and closing argument were harmless because they could not reasonably have affected the outcome of the trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State could cross-examine Way about his retention of and evaluation by a non-testifying psychiatric expert.
2. Whether the State could invoke the missing-witness rule and argue that the absence of the non-testifying psychiatric expert supported an adverse inference.
3. Whether the errors concerning the cross-examination and closing argument required reversal.

Disposition

affirmed