Opinion ID: 2505179
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Investor Testimony

Text: Appellant contends the lower court erred in permitting five CI investors to testify. This issue is not preserved for appellate review. The record contains a partial transcript from a hearing before Judge Johnson on September 7, 2007. In the course of this transcript, Judge Johnson is apparently reviewing pretrial motions, and states that he has before him a motion to exclude some kind of invested [sic] testimony. Judge Johnson then says that a determination of whether or not the testimony being tendered by a particular investor is relevant and I don't know that I can make that all without hearing what the testimony is and declines to rule on the motion at that juncture. The record also includes Defendant's Confidential Trial Brief for Judge Cottingham Only. This brief was presented to Judge Cottingham before the trial commenced on February 9, 2009. [6] This document contains this section: Investor Testimony The State will likely attempt to introduce testimony from individuals who lost substantial sums of money invested in the notes and debentures of CII. However, it appears that none of these investor witnesses will testify that they ever spoke to or corresponded with Jack Sterling about their investments. In previous related trials, witnesses testified to false and misleading statements made to them by Larry Owen and Earle Morris. The investors also provided heart-wrenching testimony about the impact of their losses. The defendant's objection to such testimony is stated in our Motion to Exclude Irrelevant and Unduly Prejudicial Investor Testimony filed on August 24, 2007. In summary, under Rule 403 of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, the State should not be permitted to introduce emotionally charged and highly prejudicial testimony of investors who had no dealings with Sterling. Unless the State proves something more than a merely speculative connection between Sterling and the false statements of others, the testimony is not probative of Sterling's guilt. Since the defense is prepared to stipulate to the amount of investor losses flowing from the bankruptcy of CII and HomeGold, any probative value of testimony from an investor who had no dealings with Sterling is vastly outweighed by its unduly prejudicial impact, which would seriously jeopardize Sterling's right to a fair trial. There is no mention of this document nor any objection to any investor testimony in the record. Shortly before this case was to be heard on appeal, appellant's appellate attorneys filed a motion to supplement the record with the affidavit of his trial attorneys, which this Court granted without prejudice to our right to find no objection to the investors' testimony was preserved for appeal. The gist of this affidavit is that (1) the confidential trial brief was filed January 26, 2009; and (2) at trial, when the State proposed to call investor witnesses, trial counsel strenuously objected to the admission of their testimony during one such in-chambers meeting.... This affidavit does not: (1) clarify when the objection was renewed at trial, and since the CI investors did not testify sequentially, it is impossible to determine whether one or more testified without objection; (2) specify what arguments were raised in this in camera motion; or (3) reflect the basis for the trial court's ruling.