Opinion ID: 1315723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: testimony from victim's sister

Text: Kelly argues that the trial court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from Shealy's sister Cynthia Slade. We disagree. During the sentencing phase, the State called Slade who presented victim impact testimony. The State questioned Slade about Shealy's son Alex, who was six years old when Shealy was killed: [Solicitor]: Have you seen Alex since his mother was murdered? [Slade]: Yes, sir. [Solicitor]: Has there been a change in him? [Slade]: Oh, yeah. [Solicitor]: Does he talk about it? [Slade]: Yeah. He talks about it a lot [sic]. We were at a wedding and he told basically everybody Kelly's attorney objected on the basis of hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection. When the State asked what Alex had said, Slade responded: He told everybody in theat the wedding that a bad man had killed his mommy. Kelly argues Slade's testimony that Alex said a bad man had killed his mommy was impermissible hearsay and should have been excluded. The South Carolina Rules of Evidence define hearsay as a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Rule 801(c), SCRE. By that definition, we believe Slade's testimony was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. That is, the evidence was not introduced to prove that a bad man killed Shealy. Instead, the testimony clearly was offered to show the impact the murder had on Shealy's young child and the rest of her family. As such, it was properly offered as victim impact evidence. See, e.g., State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 485 S.E.2d 360 (1997) (victim's sister's testimony about the effect of the victim's death upon herself and the victim's three children was relevant for the jury to meaningfully assess appellant's moral culpability and blameworthiness). Accordingly, the trial court correctly allowed this evidence to be admitted. Kelly's remaining issue [13] is affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2) and the following authorities: State v. Johnson, 338 S.C. 114, 525 S.E.2d 519, cert. denied,  U.S., 121 S.Ct. 104, 148 L.Ed.2d 62 (2000) (autopsy photograph may be relevant to showing physical torture); State v. Ard, 332 S.C. 370, 505 S.E.2d 328 (1998) (the determination of the relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of a photograph is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge); State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E.2d 180 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 940, 107 S.Ct. 1592, 94 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987) (photographs which depict the bodies of the murder victims in substantially the same condition in which the defendant left them are admissible in sentencing phase of capital trial).