Opinion ID: 1393848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: future adaptability

Text: At the sentencing phase of trial, Riddle proffered the expert opinion testimony of a clinical psychologist who had conducted an evaluation of him relative to his potential to adapt to prison life. The proffer was made in the form of a written report which recited Riddle's personality characteristics as constructed from a battery of psychological tests. The report concludes with the opinion that Riddle is very likely to adapt reasonably to prison life. The trial judge ruled that, under South Carolina precedent, the testimony was irrelevant and inadmissible. In State v. Patterson , 290 S.C. 523, 351 S.E. (2d) 853 (1986), and State v. Matthews , ___ S.C. ___, 353 S.E. (2d) 444 (1986), this identical issue was presented. In both cases, we held that exclusion of expert opinion evidence relative to a defendant's future adaptability to life in prison was reversible error under Skipper v. South Carolina , 476 U.S. ___, 106 S.Ct. 1669. 90 L.Ed. (2d) 1 (1986). See also Lockett v. Ohio , 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed. (2d) 973 (1978); Eddings v. Oklahoma , 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed. (2d) 1 (1982). Here, again, we hold the exclusion of the testimony was reversible error under Skipper.