State v. Heyward, 425 S.C. 407

Summary

The South Carolina Supreme Court held that defense counsel's questioning of a witness did not open the door to testimony that the defendant had previously committed domestic violence against a cooperating codefendant. The court found the admission of that propensity evidence was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. The objection was preserved because the grounds were apparent from the context of the pretrial proceedings, the trial objections, and the court's ruling, even though counsel did not restate the grounds after the bench conference.
2. Defense counsel did not open the door to testimony that Heyward had physically abused Rivers, because the questions concerning suicide attempts, mental health, and an accusation against another person did not arise from the same fact or transaction as Heyward's alleged physical abuse.
3. The erroneous admission of the domestic-violence testimony was not harmless because the evidence of guilt was not overwhelming and the testimony bolstered Rivers's credibility, making the error prejudicial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defense counsel's questioning of Singleton opened the door to testimony that Heyward had previously committed domestic violence against Rivers.
2. Whether the domestic-violence testimony error was harmless.
3. Whether the writ of certiorari should be dismissed as improvidently granted as to the admission of Hemingway's identification of Heyward.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded