State v. Page
406 S.C. 272, 750 S.E.2d 623, 2013 WL 5929096 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The right to offer the testimony of witnesses is fundamental, allowing a defendant to present a defense and their version of the facts. A trial court abuses its discretion when it excludes relevant testimony that could assist the jury in determining the truth of an issue.
Facts:
- James Lamarcus Page and Lentavis Baxter were accused of assaulting two women in an apartment, leading to charges including kidnapping and sexual assault.
- The victims alleged they were forcibly assaulted, while Page claimed the sexual encounters were consensual and in exchange for drugs.
- Marsh Curtice, an ex-boyfriend of one victim, left a voicemail suggesting the victims had invited the defendants to smoke crack and trade sex, but later recanted this statement.
- The trial court denied a motion to join the trials of Page and Baxter.
- The trial court ruled Curtice's testimony irrelevant and disallowed it from being presented.
- Page was convicted of kidnapping, second degree criminal sexual conduct, second degree assault and battery, and possession of a knife during the commission of a violent crime.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by denying the defendant's motion to join trials and by finding a witness's testimony irrelevant, thus not allowing the witness to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - Geathers (J.)
Yes, the trial court erred in excluding Curtice's testimony, but did not err in denying joinder. I find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for joinder because the judge based his decision on a just and proper consideration of the issues at hand, including the solicitor's authority to determine the manner of prosecution. However, the trial court did err in finding Curtice's proffered testimony irrelevant and not allowing Page to call Curtice as a witness. This error was an abuse of discretion because Curtice's testimony was relevant to whether Page's encounter with the victims involved consensual sex and to the credibility of Victim 1. The right to offer relevant witness testimony is a fundamental constitutional right, and the exclusion of such testimony prejudiced Page as a matter of law. The trial court improperly made a credibility determination that should have been left to the jury. Because of this error, we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.
Analysis:
This case underscores the importance of the defendant's right to present a defense through relevant witness testimony. The court's decision emphasizes that even if a witness has made contradictory statements, it is for the jury to determine credibility. The ruling may influence future decisions on the admissibility of witness testimony, particularly in cases where the witness has recanted prior statements. It also clarifies that while prosecutors retain discretion in how to proceed with cases, this discretion is subject to judicial supervision to protect defendants' rights to a fair trial.
