The Supreme Court of South Carolina 

The State, Petitioner, 

v. 

Henry Haygood, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-001985 

ORDER 

After careful consideration of the petition for rehearing, the Court is unable to 

discover that any material fact or principle of law has been either overlooked or 

disregarded, and hence, there is no basis for granting a rehearing. Accordingly, the 

petition for rehearing is denied. However, we hereby withdraw our original 

opinion in this matter and substitute it with Opinion No. 27560. 

s/ Jean H. Toal C.J. 

s/ Costa M. Pleicones J. 

s/ Donald W. Beatty J. 

s/ John W. Kittredge J. 

s/ Kaye G. Hearn J. 

Columbia, South Carolina 

August 12, 2015 
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

The State, Petitioner, 

v. 

Henry Haygood, Respondent. 

Appellate Case No. 2014-001985 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

Appeal From Orangeburg County 

The Honorable Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge 

Opinion No. 27560 

Submitted February 3, 2015 – Refiled August 12, 2015 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant 

Attorney General John Croom Hunter, both of Columbia, 

for Petitioner, 

Assistant Public Defender Breen Richard Stevens, of 

Orangeburg, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: The State seeks a writ of certiorari to review the Court of 

Appeals' opinion in State v. Haygood, 409 S.C. 420, 762 S.E.2d 69 (Ct. App. 
2014). We grant the petition, dispense with further briefing, affirm the Court of 

Appeals' opinion in part, vacate in part, and remand for a new trial. 

The Court of Appeals found the circuit court erred in finding the testimonial 

statements made by the victim to the police did not violate the Confrontation 

Clause of the Sixth Amendment because the statements fell within the excited 

utterance exception to hearsay. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 

(2004) ("Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the 

Framers' design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law 

. . . . Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment 

demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for 

cross-examination."). 

The Court of Appeals also found the admission of the victim's statements in this 

case violated the Confrontation Clause because the victim's statements were 

testimonial, there was no evidence the victim was unavailable to testify, and there 

was no evidence respondent had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim. We 

find the Court of Appeals erred in addressing whether the facts of this case 

demonstrated respondent's rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated 

because the record before the court lacked the facts necessary to make such a 

determination. For unexplained reasons, the recording of the proceeding before the 

magistrate's court was unavailable, and the only facts available to the Court of 

Appeals were from the magistrate's summary of the responding officer's testimony 

during the State's case-in-chief. We find the information contained in the 

magistrate's summary is insufficient to conduct a Confrontation Clause analysis, 

especially where the magistrate did not hold a hearing to determine whether the 

officer's testimony would violate the Confrontation Clause. 

Therefore, we vacate the Court of Appeals' opinion to the extent it addresses 

whether the victim's statements violated the Confrontation Clause. Moreover, 

because there is no record of the proceedings before the magistrate's court to aid 

the magistrate in fully analyzing this issue were we to remand for a determination 

of whether the statements were testimonial, we find it necessary to remand for a 

new trial in accordance with this opinion. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE, and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.