Opinion ID: 1388145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Bloodhound Testimony

Text: Johnson contends that the trial court erred by allowing testimony about bloodhound tracking at the scene of the crime. During the pretrial hearing, the Solicitor agreed not to introduce evidence with respect to bloodhound tracking. At trial, the State examined Horton, a SLED dog handler, to corroborate Hess' and Harbert's story about where they went when they fled from the RV. During his testimony, several references were made to the dog who helped Horton track the footprints. Johnson argues that it was improper for the Solicitor to introduce evidence that he expressly agreed not to introduce. Johnson claims that this constitutes reversible error when the Solicitor's actions put the defendant in a position in which he is not able to rebut the evidence presented and that it may not be considered harmless error in a capital case. We disagree. Testimony of a dog handler based upon his observation of a tracking dog may be properly admitted into evidence. State v. Childs , 299 S.C. 471, 385 S.E. (2d) 839 (1989); State v. Brown , 103 S.C. 437, 88 S.E. 21 (1916). Therefore, this evidence would be admissible but for the pretrial agreement that the Solicitor would not mention the dogs. Upon a review of the record, it appears that the Solicitor made a good faith effort to comply with the agreement. Furthermore, Johnson has failed to demonstrate the prejudice resulting from this evidence. Johnson also contends that the Solicitor committed reversible error when he referred to the bloodhounds in his closing argument. Johnson failed to object at the time of the trial, which demonstrates that the prejudicial effect of the matter was negligible. State v. Arther , 290 S.C. 291, 350 S.E. (2d) 187 (1986). Furthermore, the Solicitor's brief mention of bloodhound corresponds to the trial testimony. The jury is presumed to remember and know the trial testimony, and the Solicitor has the right to comment on its weight and state his version of the testimony. State v. Pitts , 256 S.C. 420, 182 S.E. (2d) 738 (1971). We find any error committed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.