Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a third attending physi cian, testified it was possible Smith was not even present when the spiral fracture occurred. During the motion in limine to exclude evidence of the victim’s broken femur, the trial court noted “either he or his wife or both of them had to do it.” It appears from the record that the trial court focused on clear and convincing evidence of a pattern of abuse inflicted upon the victim by any perpetrator, versus cle the victim’s broken femur after investigating the incident, and returned the victim to her parents. Therefore, evidence of the victim’s broken femur was inadmissible as a prior bad act because the State failed to present any evidence that Smith intentionally inflicted the injury. Compare State v. Pierce, 326 S.C. 176, 178-79, 485 S.E.2d 913, 914 (1997) (<HOLDING>), with State v. Martucci, 380 S.C. 232, 241-42, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries  citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted (B) holding that victims injuries did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle when the victim received injuries from a gun fired in the vehicle (C) holding hospital employees testimony regarding victims previous injuries was inadmissible under the common scheme or plan exception because there was no clear and convincing evidence defendant inflicted the injuries (D) holding that under the common law a claim for personal injuries died with the victim (E) holding that the courts analysis should focus on the nature of the abuse injuries inflicted and the effect of both
Output (English): holding that under the common law a claim for personal injuries died with the victim