Court Opinion

ID: 9403684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:13:30.441002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.754210
License: Public Domain

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
                     In The Supreme Court

        The State, Respondent,

        v.

        Richard Passio Jr., Petitioner.

        Appellate Case No. 2021-001007

    ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

                     Appeal from Jasper County
                 Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

                         Opinion No. 28162
               Heard March 8, 2023 – Filed June 21, 2023

                      AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

        Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, of Elizabeth Franklin-
        Best, P.C., of Columbia, for Petitioner.

        Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
        Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
        Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
        Assistant Attorney General William Joseph Maye, all of
        Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, of
        Bluffton, all for Respondent.

JUSTICE KITTREDGE:         Petitioner Richard Passio Jr. was convicted of
murdering his wife and sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment. Passio appealed,
arguing the trial court erred in (1) denying his motion for a directed verdict and (2)
admitting a screenshot of his Facebook page. Finding no error by the trial court on
either issue, the court of appeals affirmed. State v. Passio, 433 S.C. 666, 861 S.E.2d
785 (Ct. App. 2021). We granted a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals'
decision.

Having carefully examined Passio's challenges, we affirm the court of appeals in
upholding the trial court's denial of Passio's motion for a directed verdict. We
conclude, however, that the admission of Passio's Facebook page was error, albeit
harmless. We therefore affirm the court of appeals' decision as modified.

                                          I.
As more fully set forth in the court of appeals' opinion, the State presented
substantial circumstantial evidence of Passio's guilt. We readily agree with the court
of appeals that the evidence presented at trial—viewed collectively and in the light
most favorable to the State—provided a sufficient basis on which a reasonable juror
could readily find Passio guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See State v. Frazier, 386
S.C. 526, 531, 689 S.E.2d 610, 613 (2010) ("When reviewing a denial of a directed
verdict, an appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the
light most favorable to the State."); State v. Bennett, 415 S.C. 232, 237, 781 S.E.2d
352, 354 (2016) ("[I]n ruling on a directed verdict motion where the State relies on
circumstantial evidence, the court must determine whether the evidence presented is
sufficient to allow a reasonable juror to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt."). Therefore, the court of appeals properly affirmed the trial court's denial of
Passio's motion for a directed verdict.
We further note that Passio now relies on his directed verdict motion to challenge
the admission of certain evidence. We reject Passio's attempt to rely on his directed
verdict motion as a backdoor means to contest evidentiary rulings that were not
objected to at trial and not raised as separate issues on appeal.
                                          II.

With respect to Passio's Facebook profile picture and accompanying caption,1 the

1
 The caption read, "I know who I am. I'm a dude, playing a dude, disguised as
another dude." Although not revealed at trial, Passio's caption was a quote from the
2008 film Tropic Thunder.
State introduced the Facebook screenshot evidence (over Passio's objection) during
the testimony of Passio's father. The State argued the Facebook caption evidence
was necessary to impeach the father's testimony that he knew his son well. The
father denied any knowledge of or familiarity with the Facebook caption. The
admission of this evidence was error: a witness may not be impeached by extrinsic
evidence of a collateral matter. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 856 (2013) ("A witness cannot
be contradicted, for the purpose of impeachment, as to collateral, irrelevant, or
immaterial matters. Evidence introduced for the sole purpose of impeaching a
witness is not otherwise relevant or material. Where the subject of the extrinsic
evidence is collateral to the substantive issues at trial, then normally the defendant's
answer with regard to his or her knowledge or denial of the questioned conduct is
binding on the questioner and precludes further inquiry or extrinsic proof. The effect
of this rule is that it prevents irrelevant evidence from being introduced under the
guise of impeachment." (footnotes omitted)). 2 It was error for the court of appeals
to affirm the admission of the Facebook caption.
Nevertheless, the erroneous admission of Passio's Facebook caption was an
insubstantial error not affecting the result of the trial. See State v. Pagan, 369 S.C.
201, 212, 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside
convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result."). The evidence of
Passio's guilt was substantial, and there is no good-faith argument that the admission
of the Facebook caption affected the outcome of the trial. The error in admitting the
Facebook caption was harmless. See State v. Langley, 334 S.C. 643, 647–48, 515
S.E.2d 98, 100 (1999) ("Even if the evidence was not relevant and thus wrongly
admitted by the trial judge, its admission may constitute harmless error if the
irrelevant evidence did not affect the outcome of the trial."). We therefore modify
the court of appeals' opinion.

2
  After improperly seeking admission of the collateral Facebook caption, the State
compounded its error by misuing the caption to attack Passio's character during
closing argument. Specifically, the solicitor concluded her closing argument as
follows:

      I'm going to leave you with [Passio's] quote: "I know who I am, I'm a
      dude playing a dude, disguised as another dude." Well, he does know
      who he is, and he does know what he did. He knows the monster inside
      that he has tried to disguise. Don't be fooled by that disguise. I'm
      asking you to return a verdict of guilty on murder, and speak the truth
      that [the victim] can no longer speak.
                                         III.

We affirm the court of appeals' decision to uphold the trial court's denial of Passio's
motion for directed verdict. However, we modify the court of appeals' opinion by
holding it was error—albeit harmless—for the trial court to admit Passio's Facebook
caption. The decision of the court of appeals is
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

BEATTY, C.J., FEW, JAMES, and HILL, JJ., concur.