Opinion ID: 1322575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Coworker's Testimony Regarding Holder

Text: Holder next contends the trial court erred in allowing a coworker, Angela Eccles, to testify that Holder began dressing differently and talked less about her child once her relationship began with Martucci. Holder argues the testimony was inadmissible character evidence under Rule 404(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence (SCRE) because it implied Holder was acting in conformity with this bad trait of her character by putting her relationship with Martucci ahead of her own child's best interests. Eccles testified that she is a hair stylist at Capelli's Hair Salon in Mauldin and had worked there for seven years. Holder started working at the salon in January 2002. Mark Martucci worked at a carpet store next door. Martucci was one of Holder's first clients, and Eccles was aware that the two had developed a relationship and moved in together. Eccles stated that when Holder brought her son, Bo, to the salon for a haircut in early July 2002, she noticed that Bo had bruises along the sides of his face. Her impression, based on his appearance, was that somebody had squeezed his face. Eccles asked Holder about it, and Holder said her son had been pushed into a swimming pool by a dog at the home of Martucci's sister. Eccles testified that Holder added that she wouldn't have believed it herself, except it got caught on video because Mark's sister was videotaping at the time. [4] Eccles said that during this July visit to the salon, Holder's son seemed upset compared to the three or four times she had previously seen him and he was crying. Holder told her son, You better behave or I'm going to take you home to Mark. At that point, the child fell to the floor and cried and screamed, which Eccles said concerned her because she thought it was odd. When asked to generally describe Holder during the time she worked with her, Eccles stated: When she first started working there, she talked more about Bo andit's hard to explain. She was a little more soft-spoken. She dressed a little more conservatively. And over a period of weeks, it started to change, especially now looking back at the change of her dress. She started dressing a little different. Defense counsel objected to this last response quoted above, summarily stating, reasonable objection under Rule 404, Your Honor, placing her character in evidence. The trial court overruled the objection. Eccles concluded her testimony on this particular point by stating that Holder did not talk as much about Bo and starting talking about Mark, Mark, Mark basically all the time once they met. She stated she did know if it's just because we're all moms, but we [the other salon employees] all talk[ed] about our kids, kids, kids. Eccles later testified, without objection, that Holder had stopped speaking to her parents, although Holder said they had tried to call her. Eccles stated, I don't remember if it was her or Mark that had told her she didn't need to talk to them or if she herself just did not want to have anything to do with them anymore. The State contends the testimony was relevant to Holder's state of mind as it was required to prove that Holder caused the death of her child while committing abuse or neglect, and the death occurred under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life. Thus, the evidence about Holder's relationship with Martucci, her changed appearance, and her failed relationship with her parents [5] was relevant to Holder's state of mind. The admission or exclusion of testimonial evidence falls within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent abuse resulting in prejudice. State v. Brannon, 341 S.C. 271, 277, 533 S.E.2d 345, 348 (Ct.App.2000). Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is not admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. Rule 404(a), SCRE. An exception to this rule exists for [e]vidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same. Id. Rule 404(a)(1). The term `character' refers to a generalized description of a person's disposition or a general trait such as honesty, temperance or peacefulness. State v. Nelson, 331 S.C. 1, 7, 501 S.E.2d 716, 719 (1998). Generally speaking, character refers to an aspect of an individual's personality which is usually described in evidentiary law as a `propensity.' Id. (citations omitted). A person is guilty of homicide by child abuse if the person... causes the death of a child under the age of eleven while committing child abuse or neglect, and the death occurs under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life. S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-85(A)(1) (2003) (emphasis added). For purposes of the homicide by child abuse statute, extreme indifference has been defined as a mental state akin to intent characterized by a deliberate act culminating in death. McKnight v. State, 378 S.C. 33, 48, 661 S.E.2d 354, 361 (2008) (quoting State v. Jarrell, 350 S.C. 90, 98, 564 S.E.2d 362, 367 (Ct.App.2002)). We conclude Eccles's testimony regarding Holder is not inadmissible character evidence. Rather, the coworker was merely recounting her version of events leading up to the time Holder's child was killed, as well as her impression of Holder during this time frame. The State's purpose for offering the testimony was not to show Holder had a propensity to abuse her child in conformance with a character trait. Rather, it was to show Holder's strong desire to please Martucci instead of protecting the welfare of her child and to establish an element of the offense, that she manifested an extreme indifference to the well-being of her son. Moreover, the impact of this brief evidence was minimal in light of the record as a whole, and it was cumulative to other evidence along these same lines that was admitted without objection. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 344 S.C. 70, 75, 543 S.E.2d 552, 554-55 (2001) (holding the erroneous admission of evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it is minimal in the context of the entire record and cumulative to other testimony admitted without objection).