Opinion ID: 1341304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failing to Investigate Backgrounds of Victims and Witnesses

Text: The State contends the PCR judge erred in finding counsel's failure to investigate the backgrounds of the victims and witnesses to determine if they had criminal records or were involved in illegal activities prejudiced respondent's defense. We agree. Counsel admitted at the PCR hearing he did not check the criminal records of the victims or eyewitnesses to the robbery prior to the trial. Counsel further admitted it was an error not to investigate the victims and eyewitnesses. The robbery occurred after 11:00 p.m. in a high crime district. Given the time and location of the robbery, a reasonable attorney would have concluded a background investigation of the victims and witnesses was necessary. An investigation to determine the credibility of the victims and witnesses was especially important in light of respondent's claim that he was merely retrieving property which had been stolen from him by the victims. Therefore, there is probative evidence to support the PCR judge's finding that counsel's performance was deficient in this matter. Skeen v. State, supra . However, there is no probative evidence to support the finding of prejudice. While the PCR judge was correct in finding the credibility of the eyewitnesses and victims would have been critical, no probative evidence was presented at the PCR hearing to show the eyewitnesses and victims were not credible. The only evidence that either the victims or eyewitnesses had criminal records were statements and questions by respondent's PCR counsel that one of the victims was incarcerated in another state at the time of respondent's trial and respondent's testimony that he knew this victim was in jail. [1] Respondent failed to substantiate this allegation with any probative evidence. See Glover v. State, 318 S.C. 496, 458 S.E.2d 538 (1995) (applicant's allegations, alone, will not support a finding of prejudice when applicant claims counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate witnesses; instead, applicant must show the results of an investigation would have resulted in a different outcome at trial). Mere speculation and conjecture on the part of respondent is insufficient. Id. Even assuming one of the eyewitnesses or victims had a criminal record, no evidence was presented to show the crime was one of moral turpitude which could be used for impeachment purposes. State v. Major, 301 S.C. 181, 391 S.E.2d 235 (1990). Moreover, because at the trial the victims did not testify [2] and the State never attempted to establish the credibility of the victims, they could not be impeached with any prior records. Thus, no evidence supports the PCR judge's finding that respondent was prejudiced by counsel's failure to check the records of these individuals. Satterwhite v. State, supra ; High v. State, 300 S.C. 88, 386 S.E.2d 463 (1989) (PCR judge's findings will not be upheld if there is no probative evidence to support them).