State v. Williams
1985 S.C. App. LEXIS 329, 331 S.E.2d 354, 285 S.C. 544 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testimony from a law enforcement officer recounting an out-of-court statement or communicative conduct of a non-testifying witness, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, is inadmissible hearsay. The admission of such testimony, without a showing that the declarant is unavailable and that the statement bears adequate indicia of reliability, also violates the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation.
Facts:
- A female employee of an apartment complex was robbed at gunpoint by a man wearing an army coat with a stocking over his face.
- The robber used a rifle and commanded the employee to put approximately $1,400 into a pink pocketbook.
- The employee described the robber's voice as soft, 'feminine,' with a 'New York' accent, and stated it was familiar to her as that of a black man who had been in the office before.
- The employee did not identify Lee M. Williams as the robber, but did say she had previously spoken to him in the office.
- Upon his arrest, Lee M. Williams was in possession of an army coat.
- A police officer took the pink pocketbook used in the robbery and showed it to Williams' wife at her place of employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Lee M. Williams was tried for armed robbery in a state trial court.
- During the trial, the prosecution introduced testimony from a police officer stating that Williams' wife had 'positively identified' a pocketbook used in the robbery.
- Williams' defense counsel objected to the testimony as hearsay, but the trial judge overruled the objection and admitted the testimony.
- The jury convicted Williams of armed robbery.
- Williams (appellant) appealed the conviction to the state's intermediate court of appeals, arguing the trial judge erred by allowing the officer's testimony.
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 police officer's testimony recounting an out-of-court identification of evidence by a defendant's non-testifying spouse constitute inadmissible hearsay and violate the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, Chief Judge
Yes. A police officer's testimony recounting an out-of-court identification by a defendant's non-testifying spouse is inadmissible hearsay and violates the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation. The officer’s testimony that Mrs. Williams 'positively identified' the pocketbook was inadmissible hearsay because it was an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted—namely, that she had knowledge of the pocketbook, thereby implicating her husband. This testimony did not qualify for any hearsay exception and was highly prejudicial because it was the only evidence linking Williams to the pocketbook, which the solicitor called 'of critical importance to this case.' Furthermore, admitting the testimony violated Williams' Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him, as he had no opportunity to cross-examine his wife. The state failed to demonstrate that Mrs. Williams was legally unavailable to testify or that her out-of-court identification possessed the 'indicia of reliability' required to dispense with confrontation.
Concurring - Bell, Judge
The conviction should be reversed on hearsay grounds alone. The majority is correct that the officer's testimony was inadmissible hearsay and its admission was prejudicial error. However, the court should not address the Confrontation Clause issue, as the appellant, Williams, did not specifically raise it in his exception on appeal.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the fundamental principles of the hearsay rule and the Confrontation Clause in criminal prosecutions. It clarifies that even indirect references to out-of-court assertions, such as a police officer summarizing a witness's identification, are treated as hearsay if offered for their truth. The decision serves as a significant check on prosecutorial tactics, preventing the government from using law enforcement officers as conduits for incriminating statements from witnesses who are not present in court to be cross-examined. This precedent solidifies the requirement that evidence connecting a defendant to a crime must come from sources that can be tested through the adversarial process, rather than through secondhand accounts.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Williams