State v. Mitchell

S.C.

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Citations: 286 S.C. 572, 336 S.E.2d 150, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 491

Decision Date: 10/15/1985

Docket Number: 22384

Jurisdiction: SC

Bluebook Citation: State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 336 S.E.2d 150, 1985 S.C. LEXIS 491 (S.C. 1985)

More Cases: S.C. decisions from 1985

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 123 decisions

123

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

S.C. Ct. App.94

S.C.23

S.C. App. Ct.4

Most recently cited by10

2026State v. Calvin D. Ford S.C. Ct. App.
2026State v. Nevelle J. Eberhart
2026In the Matter of Phillip B. Nix (2)
2026State v. Shannon L. Bone S.C. Ct. App.
2026State v. David L. Hayden S.C. Ct. App.
2026State v. Quinterious R. Truesdale S.C. Ct. App.
2026State v. Randy D. Grainger S.C. Ct. App.
2025State v. Michael I. Mobley S.C. Ct. App.
2025State v. Demetrick Doctor S.C. Ct. App.
2024State v. Gleaton S.C. Ct. App.

Cites 3 cases

State v. Brown
State v. James
State v. Key

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

The STATE, Respondent, v. Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant.

Judges

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Attorneys

Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey of S. C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Staff Atty. Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Solicitor Donald V. Meyers, Lexington, for respondent.

majority Ness, Chief Justice:

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.

Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are affirmed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23.

Affirmed.

Gregory, Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.