Court Opinion

ID: 9848001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:11:07.630405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:54.108755
License: Public Domain

Littlejohn, Justice
(dissenting) :
I agree with Mr. Justice Bradford’s treatment of all issues except one.
I would affirm the judgment of the lower court and dissent to that part of the opinion which holds that the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence the note which defendant’s witness Davis admitted receiving. When the note was admitted into evidence, witness Davis had: (1) repudiated the statement which he had given to officers following his arrest; (2) testified inconsistently with the statement he had previously given; and (3) testified consistent with instructions given to him in the note.
In my view, the note was admissible in evidence on the issue of Davis’ credibility regardless of who sent it to him. The State was entitled to show that his testimony was changed and motivated by the note.
The State was entitled to show, if it could, that the note came from the appellant Miller and/or entitled to show that it came from any other person. But the note should not be excluded merely because the State could not prove that it came from appellant Miller. The issue was not whether Miller signed the note or sent it to Davis. The issue involved whether Davis was influenced by it.
*9“When the execution of a document is not in issue, but only the .contents or the fact of the existence of a document of such tenor, no authentication is necessary.” 7 Wigmore on Evidence ¶ 2132 (3rd ed. 1940).
Our Court has recognized this principle in State v. Waldrop, 73 S. C. 60, 52 S. E. 793 (1905). The Supreme Court of California, in People v. Marsh, 58 Cal. (2d) 732, 26 Cal. Rptr. 300, 376 P. (2d) 300 (1962) states:
“The due execution of the proffered testimony was not involved. The issue was, did defendants receive this material, and if so what effect, if any, did it have on their minds.”
To admit in evidence the note, received by Davis, to show that Davis was motivated by it to change his testimony was not error. It was sufficiently qualified for impeachment purposes when he admitted receiving it.
Conceding that the note was not admissible for the purpose of showing that the appellant suborned Davis to renounce the truth from the witness stand, it was admissible on Davis’ credibility. In such a case, it would be the duty of the trial judge to charge the jury that it could be considered only on the credibility issue.
When the case is tried over, the note will be admissible in evidence. On appeal, it is incumbent on the appellant to show that he did not receive a fair trial. It has not been shown to my satisfaction that the trial judge erroneously dealt with the matter.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the lower court.