State v. Broadnax
779 S.E.2d 789 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For the purpose of impeaching a witness's credibility under Rule 609(a)(2) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, armed robbery is not a crime of 'dishonesty or false statement' that is automatically admissible. Instead, its admissibility must be determined by the trial court under the Rule 609(a)(1) balancing test, which weighs its probative value against its prejudicial effect.
Facts:
- On May 24, 2009, a masked gunman with a distinctive 'lazy eye' entered a Church’s Chicken in Columbia.
- The gunman held an employee at gunpoint and forced the employee to empty cash registers into a clear plastic bag.
- After getting the money, the gunman exited the store and got into the passenger seat of a gray Dodge truck driven by an accomplice.
- One employee chased the gunman outside and saw him leaving in the passenger seat of the truck.
- Police responded within three minutes and stopped a truck matching the description a short distance away.
- Officers found Christopher Broadnax, who had a 'lazy eye,' crouched on the floorboard of the passenger side.
- Adjacent to Broadnax, police found a gun and a bag full of money matching the employees' descriptions jammed under the passenger seat.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Christopher Broadnax with one count of armed robbery and four counts of kidnapping in the state trial court.
- After the State rested its case, Broadnax indicated he would testify, and the State moved to admit his prior criminal record for impeachment.
- The trial court, feeling constrained by existing precedent (State v. Al-Amin), admitted three of Broadnax's prior armed robbery convictions under Rule 609(a)(2), SCRE.
- A jury found Broadnax guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Broadnax (as appellant) appealed to the South Carolina Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting the prior convictions.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that armed robbery was not a crime of dishonesty and the error was not harmless.
- The State (as appellant) then appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is armed robbery a crime involving 'dishonesty or false statement' for the purposes of automatic admission for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(2) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Toal
No. Armed robbery is not a crime of 'dishonesty or false statement' automatically admissible for impeachment under Rule 609(a)(2), SCRE. The court holds that crimes of 'dishonesty or false statement' are limited to crimes in the nature of crimen falsi, meaning those that involve an element of deceit, untruthfulness, or falsification that bears directly on a witness's propensity to testify truthfully. The court overrules State v. Al-Amin, which had adopted a broader definition, reasoning that allowing crimes like robbery to be automatically admitted would let the exception in Rule 609(a)(2) 'swallow the rule' of judicial discretion in Rule 609(a)(1). Because the admission of prior convictions for the same offense for which a defendant is on trial is highly prejudicial, the decision should be left to the trial judge to conduct a balancing test. Although the court found the trial judge erred in admitting the prior convictions without this test, it concluded the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of Broadnax's guilt.
Concurring - Justice Hearn
While concurring in the result (affirming Broadnax's conviction), Justice Hearn disagrees with the majority's holding that armed robbery is not a crime of dishonesty. This opinion argues that the majority improperly relies on the federal interpretation of the rule and the concept of crimen falsi, which is not mentioned in the South Carolina rule's text. Adhering to the plain meaning of the word 'dishonesty,' which by definition includes stealing, armed robbery should qualify for automatic admission under Rule 609(a)(2). The concurrence warns that the majority's holding creates a 'perverse result' where a less severe crime like shoplifting is considered a crime of dishonesty, but armed robbery is not. Justice Hearn believes the trial court did not err in admitting the prior convictions under Rule 609(a)(2).
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of Rule 609(a)(2) in South Carolina, overruling precedent to align the state's interpretation with the more restrictive federal standard. By limiting automatically admissible crimes to those in the nature of crimen falsi, the Court shifts power back to trial judges to weigh the prejudicial impact of prior convictions, particularly those identical to the charged offense. This ruling enhances protections for defendants who choose to testify, as prosecutors can no longer automatically introduce prior robbery convictions to impeach credibility without first satisfying the Rule 609(a)(1) balancing test. The case solidifies the principle that impeachment evidence should relate directly to truthfulness, not simply to a defendant's general criminal propensity.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Broadnax