Court Opinion

ID: 9585065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:55:41.783913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:21.035885
License: Public Domain

Harwell, Justice
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent.
Five years after respondent’s conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, he filed an amended application for post-conviction relief. He alleged he was entitled to a new trial on the ground of after-discovered evidence. At his original trial respondent contended that SLED agents had planted him with drugs in order to discredit his upcoming testimony in federal court against Leonard Horger, a paid SLED informant. The SLED agents and police officers testified respondent’s allegations were false. However, at respondent’s post-conviction relief hearing, Leonard Horger, in exchange for immunity from Federal and State authorities, admitted he framed the respondent and that the SLED agents planted respondent with drugs. (The SLED agents involved subsequently had been convicted in federal court on either drug or racketeering charges.) In addition, the assistant solicitor who originally tried the case testified that he believed the cocaine was planted and that he would not reprosecute respondent if a new trial were granted. The State did not rebut the evidence. Accordingly, the court found that respondent met the required elements for a new trial. I agree.
On appeal from an order granting post-conviction relief, our review is limited to whether there is any evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact. Greene v. State, 276 S. C. 213, 277 S. E. (2d) 481 (1981). Therefore, the issue on appeal is whether there is any evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Horger’s testimony met the five requirements for a new trial as set out in State v. Caskey, 273 S. C. 325, 256 S. E. (2d) 737 (1979). After reviewing the records of respondent’s trial and post-conviction relief hearing, I believe there is ample evidence supporting the trial judge’s finding.
Furthermore, a motion for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Irvin, 270 S. C. 539, 243 S. E. (2d) 195 (1978). Absent error of law or abuse of discretion, this Court will not disturb his judgment. State v. De Angelis, 256 S. C. *614364, 182 S. E. (2d) 732 (1971); State v. Deese, 266 S. C. 534, 225 S. E. (2d) 175 (1976). I believe the trial court made its decision without error of law or abuse of discretion.
The majority concludes that Horger’s testimony fails the Caskey test because respondent was aware of, and had access to, the evidence of the alleged set-up at trial. Without a doubt respondent knew of the set-up at his trial; he contended his innocence based on the set-up from the very beginning. However, he did not subpoena Horger to be a witness at his trial because it would have been futile. Horger subsequently testified at the post-conviction relief hearing that he would not have admitted his involvement in framing respondent until he was promised immunity. I do not believe the other potential witnesses the majority refers to would have admitted their involvement without promises of immunity either. I fail to realize how respondent could have required Horger, Rotan, or Lawrence to admit to the frame-up.
Additionally, the majority doubts that Horger’s testimony would change the outcome in a new trial because it was unbelievable. The majority judges Horger’s credibility by stating he is an admitted liar, thief and drug dealer. However, the trial judge who viewed Horger as he testified concluded that Horger “appeared frank and candid in his testimony, and this court so finds him to be credible in his testimony as to this case.” On appeal this Court should not weigh the credibility of the witnesses from the transcript; that function belongs to the trier of fact. State v. Hamm, 268 S. C. 340, 233 S. E. (2d) 698 (1977).
I believe there is ample evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Horger’s testimony met the five requirements for a new trial. I would affirm.