THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE 

CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING 

EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

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 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-005 

Submitted February 3, 2015 – Filed February 11, 2015 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED 

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant 

Attorney General John Croom Colvin Hunter, both of 

Columbia, for Petitioner. 

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 (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 statement 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 statement violated the Confrontation Clause. We remand for a 

new trial in accordance with this Court's opinion. 

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED 

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

concur.