Holmes v. South Carolina
547 U.S. 319 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state evidence rule violates a defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense if it categorically excludes proffered evidence of third-party guilt based solely on the strength of the prosecution's case.
Facts:
- On December 31, 1989, 86-year-old Mary Stewart was beaten, raped, and robbed in her home, leading to her death from complications.
- The State's case against Bobby Lee Holmes relied heavily on forensic evidence, including his palm print at the scene, fibers from his clothing matching those on the victim's bed, and a DNA mixture on his underwear consistent with him and the victim.
- The State also presented a witness who saw Holmes near Stewart's home around the time of the attack.
- Holmes sought to introduce evidence that another man, Jimmy McCaw White, was the perpetrator.
- Holmes proffered several witnesses who placed White in the victim's neighborhood on the morning of the assault.
- Holmes also proffered four witnesses who testified that White had admitted to committing the crimes or had stated that Holmes was innocent.
- One witness claimed White confessed by saying "he did what they say he did" and had "no regrets about it at all."
- Another witness, incarcerated with White, testified that White admitted to the assault.
Procedural Posture:
- Bobby Lee Holmes was convicted in a South Carolina trial court and sentenced to death, which was affirmed by the South Carolina Supreme Court.
- Through state postconviction review, Holmes was granted a new trial.
- At the second trial, the trial court excluded Holmes's proffered evidence of third-party guilt.
- Holmes was again convicted by the jury.
- Holmes, as the appellant, appealed to the South Carolina Supreme Court, arguing the evidence was wrongly excluded.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court, with the State as appellee, affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was properly excluded because the State's strong forensic evidence of Holmes's guilt prevented his proffered evidence from raising a reasonable inference of his innocence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state evidence rule that prohibits a criminal defendant from introducing proof of a third party's guilt, if the prosecution has introduced forensic evidence that strongly supports a guilty verdict, violate the defendant's constitutional right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
Yes. The South Carolina evidence rule violates a criminal defendant’s right to have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. While states have broad latitude to establish evidence rules, those rules cannot be 'arbitrary' or 'disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.' The rule in question is arbitrary because it requires the exclusion of defense evidence based on the strength of the prosecution's case, rather than on the relevance and probative value of the defense evidence itself. The true strength of the prosecution's evidence cannot be properly assessed without considering the defense's challenges to it, including evidence that a third party is guilty. By evaluating only one party's evidence to determine the admissibility of the other's, the rule does not rationally serve the purpose of excluding weak or speculative evidence and infringes upon the defendant's core constitutional rights.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the constitutional limitations on state evidence rules, particularly those that could prevent a defendant from presenting exculpatory evidence. The Court clarified that the right to present a defense is not absolute but cannot be curtailed by arbitrary rules that short-circuit the fact-finding process. By invalidating South Carolina's rule, the Court protected the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of fact, responsible for weighing conflicting evidence from both the prosecution and the defense. This precedent prevents states from creating evidentiary hurdles that make the admissibility of defense evidence contingent on a judge's preliminary assessment of the strength of the prosecution's case.
Unlock the full brief for Holmes v. South Carolina