Opinion ID: 1315723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: bolstering of state's witness

Text: Kelly argues that the State improperly bolstered Matthew McCormack's testimony thereby impermissibly vouching for McCormack's credibility. We agree. As recounted above in Issue 2, McCormack had been Kelly's cellmate. McCormack testified about Kelly making a shank and how he said he was going to use it to abduct a female correctional officer. In addition, McCormack testified that Kelly had frequently spoken about his crimes. McCormack stated that Kelly told him that he and Shealy had planned to rob the KFC but that Shealy had turned on him during the robbery. McCormack testified that Kelly told him that he came up behind Shealy and cut her throat and had tried to decapitate her. Toward the end of McCormack's direct examination, the following colloquy took place: [Assistant Solicitor]: What did I tell you that I absolutely required regarding your testimony to this jury today? [McCormack]: Uhexcuse me? [Assistant Solicitor]: Did I tell you to tell the truth to this jury [McCormack]: Of course. At that point, Kelly objected on the grounds that the assistant solicitor was bolstering the witness's testimony and was making himself a witness. After the trial court overruled the objection, the assistant solicitor continued: [Assistant Solicitor]: What did I tell you regarding your testimony to this jury today? The only thing the State wanted from your testimony was what? [McCormack]: The truth. On cross-examination, Kelly questioned McCormack about his prior criminal record which included grand larceny, burglary and forgery convictions. Kelly also elicited testimony from McCormack, who was a federal inmate, regarding how in the federal system an inmate could get a sentence reduction if he provides helpful testimony to the government. McCormack acknowledged that the potential for a sentence reduction was one of [his] main reasons for testifying against Kelly. Kelly argues that the State's questioning impermissibly bolstered McCormack's credibility because it placed the prestige of the government behind McCormack, a jailhouse informant. Kelly also maintains that the assistant solicitor effectively became a witness in the case and vouched for McCormack's credibility. In United States v. Walker, 155 F.3d 180 (3d Cir.1998), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit discussed generally the concept of vouching: Vouching constitutes an assurance by the prosecuting attorney of the credibility of a Government witness through personal knowledge or by other information outside of the testimony before the jury .... A prosecutor's vouching for the credibility of a government witness raises two concerns: (1) such comments can convey the impression that evidence not presented to the jury but known to the prosecutor, supports the charges against the defendant and can thus jeopardize the defendant's right to be tried solely on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury; and (2) the prosecutor's opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the Government and may induce the jury to trust the Government's judgment rather than its own view of the evidence. Id. at 184 (citations omitted). Typically, vouching occurs when the prosecution comments on a witness's credibility in its opening statement or closing argument. See id. at 185-87 (discussion of Third Circuit case law on vouching). In the instant case, however, Kelly's argument is targeted at the State's questioning of McCormack. At least one court has held that this type of questioning is improper. See Mitchell v. State, 549 P.2d 96 (Okla.App.1976) (where the prosecutor asked witness whether they had talked about this case and witness responded Yes, sir. You instructed me to tell the truth, the court found improper bolstering). In our opinion, the State's questions served to improperly bolster McCormack's credibility. Id. Although perhaps not technically vouching, the manner of questioning [12] by the State raises the second concern outlined by the Walker court: the jury could have perceived that the assistant solicitor held the opinion that McCormack was, in fact, telling the truth. Thus, McCormack's testimony carried with it the imprimatur of the government, and this bolstering may have induced the jury to trust the State's judgment about McCormack. Because a jury must make its own assessment on the credibility of witnesses, it is inappropriate for the State to assure the jury of a government witness's credibility. Accordingly, the trial court erred in overruling Kelly's objection. Nevertheless, we believe that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Gaskins, 284 S.C. 105, 127, 326 S.E.2d 132, 145 (erroneous admission of evidence in sentencing phase reviewed for harmless error), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1120, 105 S.Ct. 2368, 86 L.Ed.2d 266 (1985), overruled in part on other grounds State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991). In our opinion, Kelly's cross-examination effectively impeached McCormack's credibility by eliciting information about his motive for testifying. Moreover, given the overwhelming evidence of aggravation in this case, we do not believe that the State's bolstering of McCormack materially influenced the jury's decision to impose the death penalty. Accordingly, because the error was harmless, Kelly is not entitled to resentencing on this issue.