State v. Prather
Opinion No. 27954, Heard March 5, 2019 – Filed March 11, 2020 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert crime scene analysis testimony that explains behavioral patterns like "staging" and "undoing" to infer the number of individuals present at a crime scene is admissible as non-scientific expert testimony under Rule 702, SCRE, if the expert is qualified and the subject matter is reliable, and such testimony does not become impermissible criminal profiling by opining on a specific defendant's state of mind or guilt. Furthermore, such testimony is proper reply testimony if it is "arguably contradictory" to the defense's evidence or inferences.
Facts:
- At approximately 4:30 a.m. on April 22, 2005, Robert Prather and Joshua Phillips presented to Lexington Medical Center and reported to an ER nurse that Gerald Stewart (Victim) had sexually assaulted Phillips.
- Prather told the ER nurse he had beaten Victim with his fists and that Victim was "probably barely alive."
- Police found Victim dead in his residence, clothed and kneeling face-down into his living room couch, with his head covered by a pillow and his body by a blanket; the word "rapist" was carved into his back, and a dildo was found underneath his right armpit.
- An autopsy revealed Victim died from an irregular heartbeat caused by the stress of a beating and a pre-existing enlarged heart, having suffered numerous injuries including bruising around his left eye, a fractured nose, two fractured ribs, and lacerations inside his lips.
- Prather testified that after Victim propositioned him and grabbed his arm, he hit Victim three times in self-defense.
- Prather testified that he found a dildo on the bed by Phillips' feet, and that after he and Phillips left Victim's residence, Phillips went back inside alone for about eight to ten minutes to find his shoes.
- Prather denied telling Nurse Sharpe that Victim was barely alive, or that he beat Victim onto the sofa, carved "rapist" into Victim's back, burned Victim's finger, covered Victim's body, placed the pillow over Victim's head, or placed the dildo under Victim's armpit.
- Prather reiterated that Phillips was alone in Victim's residence for about eight to ten minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Jared Prather and Joshua Phillips were indicted for murder, first-degree burglary, armed robbery, possession of a firearm or knife during the commission of a violent crime, and filing a false police report alleging the commission of a felony.
- Prather's first trial ended in a hung jury.
- Prather was re-indicted for all the original charges except the weapon charge and the false police report charge.
- In the second trial, the jury convicted Prather of murder and strong arm robbery (a lesser-included offense of armed robbery).
- The trial court sentenced Prather to concurrent prison terms and denied his motion for a new trial.
- Prather appealed his convictions to the South Carolina Court of Appeals.
- A divided Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in admitting Agent LaRosa's testimony because it was not proper reply testimony and was not harmless.
- After the State petitioned for rehearing, the Court of Appeals withdrew its original opinion and issued a revised opinion, affirming its reversal.
- The State filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to 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 the admission of expert crime scene analysis testimony, describing "staging" and "undoing" to infer the number of individuals present after a crime, constitute improper reply testimony or inadmissible criminal profiling, or improperly invade the province of the jury, when offered to rebut a defendant's testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice James
Yes, the trial court did not err in admitting the State's reply testimony from Agent LaRosa, nor did it err on Prather's additional sustaining grounds. The Court determined that LaRosa was properly qualified as an expert in crime scene analysis based on his extensive experience and training, including with the FBI. His testimony, which described "staging" (like the carving and dildo placement) and "undoing" (like covering the body) as evidence of conflicting personalities at the crime scene, was found to be reliable non-scientific expert testimony under Rule 702, SCRE. The Court distinguished this testimony from impermissible criminal profiling because LaRosa did not create profiles for specific individuals or offer an opinion on what Prather or Phillips did, or their mental health histories; rather, his testimony focused generally on the number of personalities present after the crime. The Court also held LaRosa's testimony was proper reply testimony because it rebutted the inferences from Prather's testimony that Victim was alive and not mutilated when Prather left and that Phillips was alone inside afterwards, thereby suggesting Phillips was solely responsible for the crimes. LaRosa's testimony, which provided another explanation for the number of people present, was considered "arguably contradictory" and thus permissible on reply. Finally, the Court found LaRosa's testimony did not invade the province of the jury as he did not opine on Prather's state of mind or guilt. Regarding additional arguments, the Court found prosecutorial misconduct/due process and inconsistent theories arguments unpreserved, Phillips' redacted statement (one-word cutouts of "rapeist") did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was nontestimonial and not facially incriminating, and there was sufficient evidence to deny a directed verdict on the murder charge given Prather's admissions and the pathologist's testimony. The trial court also properly excluded an unavailable witness's statement as inadmissible double hearsay.
Dissenting - Justice Few
No, while the subject matter of Agent LaRosa's testimony – that two different people acted on the crime scene – was a proper subject of reply testimony and LaRosa was qualified as an expert in crime scene analysis, the specific opinions LaRosa actually gave went too far beyond crime scene analysis. Justice Few argued that LaRosa's testimony delved into the state of mind and motives of the perpetrators, such as stating the carving was "the offender's way of saying, hey, look at this guy" or that the dildo placement was for "shock value," and that the "undoing" personality was "not comfortable" with the staging. This type of testimony, which described specific intent, beliefs, and emotions of the individuals at the scene, improperly ventured into forensic psychology and offered opinions on the state of mind of a criminal defendant, which is not allowed under legal precedent. Therefore, the dissenting opinion would affirm the court of appeals' reversal.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the boundaries of admissible non-scientific expert testimony, particularly crime scene analysis, and distinguishing it from impermissible criminal profiling. It reinforces the trial court's broad discretion in determining expert qualifications and the reliability of their testimony, as well as the scope of reply testimony. The ruling also provides important guidance on how the Confrontation Clause applies to heavily redacted, non-facially incriminating statements, emphasizing the need for direct incrimination. Ultimately, the decision underscores the careful balance courts must strike between admitting relevant expert opinions and protecting the jury's role as the ultimate arbiter of facts and intent.
