Opinion ID: 1297463
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admission of John Carter's Testimony

Text: On April 24, 1991, after Copeland was arrested in Tennessee, she voluntarily told police that a person named John murdered the Victim. Copeland contends that this statement did not reveal John's last name and, therefore, John Carter was discovered only through a statement made by her on May 22, 1991. Because the May 22nd statement was illegally obtained and inadmissible, Copeland contends that the trial court erred in not applying the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to preclude Carter's testimony. We disagree. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine provides that evidence must be excluded if it would not have come to light but for the illegal actions of the police, and the evidence has been obtained by the exploitation of that illegality. See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). However, the challenged evidence is admissible if it was obtained from a lawful source independent of the illegal conduct. State v. Cox, 287 S.C. 260, 335 S.E.2d 809 (Ct.App.1985). The discovery of Carter as a witness was procured from sources independent of the illegally obtained statement. First, Copeland disclosed to McBride the name of John Carter, and McBride immediately provided her lawyer and the police with this information. Second, Copeland's brother actually assisted the police in locating Carter. Because the discovery of John Carter was procured from lawful sources independent of the illegal actions of the police, we find no error in admitting his testimony.