Opinion ID: 4531995
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Logical Connection Standard

Text: For over eighty years after our decision in Lyle, this Court consistently adhered to its narrow acid test of logical relevancy or logical connection for admissibility of other crimes. See, e.g., State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) (citing Lyle for the proposition the other crimes must logically relate to the crime with which the defendant has been charged); State v. King, 334 S.C. 504, 512, 514 S.E.2d 578, 582 (1999) (The record must support a logical relevance between the prior bad act and the crime for which the defendant is accused.); State v. Parker, 315 S.C. 230, 234, 433 S.E.2d 831, 833 (1993) (finding no connection between the other crime and the crime charged as required by Lyle, reasoning the present facts only support a general similarity, and thus are insufficient to support the common scheme or plan exception); State v. McClellan, 283 S.C. 389, 392, 323 S.E.2d 772, 774 (1984) (It would be difficult to conceive of a common scheme or plan more within the plain meaning of the exception than that presented by this evidence.); State v. Stokes, 279 S.C. 191, 193, 304 S.E.2d 814, 815 (1983) (The 'common scheme or plan' exception requires more than mere commission of two similar crimes by the same person. There must be some connection between the crimes.); 279 S.C. at 192-93, 304 S.E.2d at 814-15 (finding the trial judge erred in admitting testimony from a witness who speculated the defendant intended to rape her because there was no connection made between the other act and the act for which the defendant was charged); State v. Rivers, 273 S.C. 75, 78, 254 S.E.2d 299, 300 (1979) (Unable to clearly perceive the connection between the acts as required by Lyle, . . . we conclude that the testimony [of the defendant's other acts of sexual misconduct] should have been excluded.); State v. Whitener, 228 S.C. 244, 265, 89 S.E.2d 701, 711 (1955) (allowing testimony of an unnatural sexual act perpetrated against the same victim some hours after the offense charged because the subsequent sex act explained why a doctor did not find any sperm during his medical examination).