Opinion · Supreme Court of South Carolina
State v. Mitchell
286 S.C. 572
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of South Carolina
- Jurisdiction
- South Carolina
- Date
- 1985-10-15
- Topic
- general
holding that error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | holding that an error is harmless when it could not have reasonably affected the outcome of the trial | stating that an error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | stating that an error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice | holding the improper admission of evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice | holding the admission of hearsay testimony was harmless error in light of the abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could find the defendant guilty | holding whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the case, but it is harmless where it could not reasonably have changed the outcome of the trial | finding the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony harmless in light of the other “abundant evidence” of defendant’s guilt | finding the erroneous admission of hearsay testimony harmless in light of the other “abundant evidence” of defendant’s guilt | indicating error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the trial's outcome | finding improper admission of hearsay testimony to be harmless error where there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony | affirming the conviction despite the admission of hearsay testimony that did not fall within any exceptions because "there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found appellant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony" | noting error only requires reversal when the defendant can prove prejudice | “Error is harmless when it ‘could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.’ ” | "Error is harmless when it `could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'" | improper introduction of hearsay evidence constitutes reversible error only if its admission is prejudicial to the defendant | errors are harmless where they could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | errors are harmless where they could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | “[T]he materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case.” | "[T]he materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." | erroneous admission of hearsay evidence is subject to harmless error analysis; error is only harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice | "Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial." | error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial | Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial. | "Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial." | "[T]he materiality and prejudicial character of [an] error [regarding the admission of evidence] must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." | "[T]he materiality and prejudicial character of [an] error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." | trial errors are harmless where they could not reasonably have affected result of trial | trial errors are harmless where they could not reasonably have affected result of trial | "No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from it
Citator
- Cited by
- 51 opinions
Appellant was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct. He alleges prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony against him. We affirm.
The victim told the police her assailant was wearing a dark colored jacket or shirt. She later identified appellant from a photographic line-up.
Appellant’s wife consented to a search of their home. At trial, a police officer who searched appellant’s home testified he was unable to locate a dark jacket. The police officer testified, over objection, that appellant’s wife said appellant owned a dark jacket, but she had washed it and could not locate it. Appellant’s wife did not testify.
This testimony was clearly hearsay and was not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Williams, __ S. C. __, 331 S. E. (2d) 354 (S. C. App. 1985). Hearsay testimony is inadmissible because the adverse party is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. State v. James, 255 S. C. 365, 179 S. E. (2d) 41 (1971). However, reversal is not required unless appellant was prejudiced by the error. State v. Brown, __ S. C. __, 334 S. E. (2d) 816 (1985).
Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case. No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case. Error is harmless when it “could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.” State v. Key, 256 S. E. 90, 180 S. E. (2d) 888 (1971).
Here, there was abundant evidence in the record from which the jury could have found appellant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay testimony. The victim identified appellant without hesitation in the photographic line-up and at trial. In addition, a State’s witness saw appellant wearing a blue coat the night of the assault. In light of these and other facts appearing in the record, we believe the admission of the hearsay testimony was harmless error.
*574 Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.
Affirmed.
Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.