Opinion ID: 1263550
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Reports

Text: Appellant argues the trial judge erred by requiring him to direct his expert witnesses to generate written reports for the benefit of the prosecution. We agree. Before trial, the State submitted a motion requesting the names and addresses of all potential expert witnesses upon whom Appellant intended to rely to establish a mental defense or any other mental deficiency. The State also requested Appellant disclose the conclusions and reports of any and all potential expert witnesses reduced to writing and accompanied by any and all written materials and all other materials upon which such an opinion is based. The motion failed to cite any South Carolina rule governing pretrial discovery. The trial judge ordered Appellant to comply with the State's request, noting the standard procedure has been to require both sides to produce reports. Rule 5(b)(1)(B) of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure creates a right of reciprocal discovery: If the defendant requests disclosure under subdivision (a)(1)(C) or (D) of this rule, upon compliance with such request by the prosecution, the defendant, on request of the prosecution, shall permit the prosecution to inspect and copy any results or reports of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests or experiments made in connection with the particular case, or copies thereof, within the possession or control of the defendant, which the defendant intends to introduce as evidence in chief at the trial or which were prepared by a witness whom the defendant intends to call at trial when the results or reports relate to his testimony. The rule requires the production of reports within the possession of the defense. However, it does not authorize the trial judge to require parties to generate written reports solely for the benefit of the opponent. Therefore, the trial judge erred in requiring Appellant to direct his expert witnesses to prepare written reports for the prosecution. Determining the trial judge committed error is the first step of our analysis. Next we must determine whether the error was harmless. Franklin v. Catoe, 346 S.C. 563, 572, 552 S.E.2d 718, 723 (2001) (the harmless error rule and a prejudice analysis are no strangers to cases involving the death penalty). Whether an error is harmless depends on the circumstances of the particular case. No definite rule of law governs this finding; rather, the materiality and prejudicial character of the error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case. Error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial. State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985) (citing State v. Key, 256 S.C. 90, 180 S.E.2d 888 (1971)). Appellant argues the State was unfairly benefited by the reports and was able to prosecute and cross-examine more vigorously because of the reports. The State contends, and we agree, the written reports generated by Appellant's experts did not advantage the State any more than the notes, data, and other materials properly disclosed under Rule 5, SCRCrimP. The written reports only summarized the contents of other discoverable materials. Appellant also argues the erroneous extension of Rule 5(b), S.C.R.Crim.P., by the trial judge resulted in the prejudicial exclusion of certain testimony from Dr. Tracy Gunter. Dr. Gunter performed a family court-ordered evaluation of Appellant at DJJ in 1995. [3] Although she diagnosed appellant with conduct disorder in 1995, she changed her diagnosis to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder before the 2003 litigation in light of new information. The trial judge excluded any testimony not related to the 1995 evaluation because Dr. Gunter's written report was based only on her 1995 encounter with Appellant. Although Dr. Gunter's entire testimony was critical in establishing mitigating evidence for Appellant, there was no prejudice to Appellant. Dr. Gunter was able to convey the crux of her testimony by stating she was hampered in her evaluation of Appellant in 1995 by a lack of DSS records showing the abuse Appellant had endured at the hand of his father. Dr. Gunter expressed concerns at the time of the evaluation that Appellant might have Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder or some type of dissociative disorder. She further stated her 1995 diagnosis was not reliable or credible due to the lack of DSS records made available to her. Because the erroneous extension of Rule 5, S.C.R.Crim.P., by the trial judge could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial, we conclude the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.