Court Opinion

ID: 9781580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:52:41.421704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:28.260565
License: Public Domain

Justice PLEICONES.
I respectfully dissent. Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s decision to suppress the prior testimony was an abuse of discretion, that is, to determine whether that ruling was without evidentiary support or controlled by an error of law. State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 706 S.E.2d 324 (2011). Finding no abuse here, I would affirm.
In Nance v. Ozmint, 367 S.C. 547, 626 S.E.2d 878 (2006) (Nance), we granted respondent post-conviction relief (PCR), citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984) and Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 125 S.Ct. 551, 160 L.Ed.2d 565 (2004), stating:
In light of the recent holding in Nixon, we believe the present case represents one of the rare cases where counsel “entirely fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing.” Moreover, counsel did not act as an adversary to the prosecution’s case, but instead helped to bolster the case against his client.
Nance at 553, 626 S.E.2d at 881 (emphasis in original).
We continued, finding that the trial, “in its entirety,” demonstrated “a total breakdown in the adversarial process during both the guilt phase and the penalty phase” such that Nance was presumed to have suffered prejudice requiring a new trial. *299Id. at 555, 626 S.E.2d at 882. We emphasized “the desultory manner in which defense counsel tried this case,” id. and reiterated that counsel “failed to ‘function ... as the government’s adversary,”’ acting instead “to reinforce the case against his client” while “abandoning] his role as defense counsel.” Id. at 557-558, 626 S.E.2d at 883.
The majority finds error in the trial court’s focus on the lack of cross-examination of Mr. Fraley in determining whether that testimony should be barred, choosing to rely instead on counsel’s “valid overall trial strategy of not contesting [Nance’s] guilt.” In my opinion, while this could be a valid strategy in isolation, this Court as well as the circuit court is bound by our finding in Nance that counsel’s performance during the guilt phase of the trial “further bolster[ed] the prosecution’s case against [Nance] rather than providing him with a defense.” Nance, 367 S.C. at 558, 626 S.E.2d at 883. The majority exceeds the scope of review when it supplies a trial strategy to lawyers who had none.
In my opinion, the majority also errs when it reverses the circuit court’s suppression decision that respondent was denied “an opportunity for effective cross-examination.... ” State v. Stokes, 381 S.C. 390, 401-2, 673 S.E.2d 434, 439 (2009) citing United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988) (emphasis supplied), by reading this Confrontation Clause jurisprudence merely to require “an opportunity for cross-examination.” As the majority rightly points out, the Confrontation Clause does not guarantee “cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Id. Nonetheless, the circuit court’s finding that admitting Mr. Fraley’s trial testimony would violate respondent’s Confrontation Clause rights because he had an inadequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness at that proceeding is supported by the evidence. The circuit court found that respondent effectively had no representation at his first trial, a finding amply supported by our opinion in Nance which held not only that respondent’s “counsel failed to provide an adversarial challenge to the prosecution” but that they actively aided the State’s case against him. Nance, at 557-558, 626 S.E.2d at 883.
*300I would find no abuse of discretion in the suppression of Mr. Fraley’s trial testimony, State v. Wright, supra, and would therefore affirm.