Opinion ID: 1342405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SPECT Scan

Text: Dr. Steedman is a medical doctor who is board certified in neurology and psychiatry. Dr. Steedman analyzed a SPECT Scan conducted on Mercer's brain. [6] The SPECT Scan was initially reviewed by a radiologist who noted a questionable abnormality. Dr. Steedman was prepared to render a stronger finding of an abnormality. The State objected strenuously against such testimony, claiming surprise and prejudice. After an offer of proof and lengthy discussion, the trial court sustained the objection on the basis of Rule 403, SCRE, and a so-called discovery order violation. This ruling rises to the level of an abuse of discretion. Application of Rule 403 should be cautiously invoked against a capital defendant in the penalty phase, especially in light of the due process implications at stake when a capital defendant seeks to introduce mitigation evidence. [7] The probative value of Dr. Steedman's excluded testimony was, as a matter of law, not substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudice, as a result of the purported late disclosure or otherwise. Reliance on the so-called discovery order cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny, for there was no formal discovery order. [8] In any event, Dr. Steedman was disclosed to the State, as was the general substance of his testimony. We nevertheless find no reversible error. When the entirety of the record is considered, the exclusion of Dr. Steedman's proffered testimony of an abnormality juxtaposed to the radiologist's notation of a questionable abnormality resulted in no prejudice to Mercer. Despite the erroneous ruling, a review of the record demonstrates that Dr. Steedman testified at length concerning Mercer's cognitive deficiencies. Dr. Steedman's unchallenged testimony included reference to the SPECT Scan results as confirmatory of Mercer's learning disorder. More to the point, the same evidence the State successfully and erroneously challengedthe SPECT Scan abnormalitywas already in evidence without objection. Another defense expert previously testified that the SPECT Scan revealed an abnormality. Dr. Donna Schwartz-Watts, a defense psychiatrist, testified that she ordered what's called a SPECT Scan. And what a SPECT Scan is, this is one of the newer tests in medicine and it shows brain function.... But what it does, it's a ... picture of how your brain functions, and that test came back abnormal. There's a ... small area that's not normal on there.... Later, as Dr. Schwartz-Watts began to sum up her testimony, she again talked about the SPECT Scan. Referring to Mercer, she said that it's already a bad brain in the sense that he's got a learning disability and ... we even know that on a SPECT Scan there's an abnormality. Thus, the very SPECT Scan abnormality testimony Mercer sought to admit through Dr. Steedman was presented to the jury without objection through Dr. Schwartz-Watts. We therefore find the trial court's error in excluding Dr. Steedman's opinion testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (quoting State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 93, 180 S.E.2d 888, 890 (1971)) (noting that an error is harmless when it `could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial').