Opinion ID: 1245727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: aerial photographs

Text: The State sought to admit into evidence certain aerial photographs taken of the DuBose farmland during 1981-1983. DuBose objected to this admission on the ground the photographs were not related to the crime charged: manufacturing and trafficking marijuana in 1984. The State argued they would be used only to show DuBose's dominion and control over the farmland. The trial judge ruled they would be admitted for a limited purpose only: ... I think the only reason the Solicitor is offering them into evidence, and I will instruct the jury, is that it merely shows that these bare spots in this wooded area adjacent to the soybean field did appear at some period of time and changed. There will be no testimony  I'm not going to allow any testimony that there was any marijuana or anything else growing in those bare spots ... [Emphasis supplied]. However, at trial the Solicitor, over objection, questioned DuBose in regard to the photographs: Q. All right, now you can see from the aerial photographs that during the winter months, you can see the ground and in the summer months, you can see some vegetation in there? A. Yes sir. Q. All right, so something was growing in those fields in 1981 and 1982 and in 1983? A. Yes sir, it could have been. The Solicitor also used the photographs in closing argument to hypothesize that marijuana had been growing in the patches from 1981-1983. He stated: Why would anyone but a fool go to all that work and then not plant marijuana in there until 1984? ... The only reason would be is because they were going to grow marijuana in 1981, in 1982, 1983 and 1984. Both the Solicitor's questioning of DuBose and his jury argument violated the trial judge's limitation as to the use of the photographs. The State contends, however, that these uses of the photographs were proper. It argues that under State v. Lyle , 125 S.C. 406, 118 S.E. 803 (1923) evidence of prior bad acts is admissible to show a common scheme or plan. It reasons that a pattern of growing marijuana in 1981-1983 falls within this exception. We disagree. In State v. Wilson , 274 S.C. 635, 266 S.E. (2d) 426 (1980) we stated: The Lyle court emphasized that evidence of other crimes must be strictly scrutinized before its admission since `the inevitable tendency of such evidence is to raise a legally spurious presumption of guilt in the minds of the jurors.' Lyle at 125 S.C. 412, 118 S.E. at 807. If there is any doubt as to the connection between the acts, the accused is to be given the benefit of the doubt and the evidence should not be admitted. 274 S.C. at 637-638, 266 S.E. (2d) at 427. Further, in State v. Conyers , 268 S.C. 276, 233 S.E. (2d) 95 (1977) we held that, due to the potential for prejudice from admission of evidence concerning other crimes, proof of the other crimes must be clear and convincing. See also 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law , § 690 (1961). Here, there is a total failure of proof that DuBose grew marijuana in the fields shown in the aerial photographs from 1981 to 1983. The trial judge's failure to limit the Solicitor's use of the photographs prejudiced DuBose and constitutes reversible error.