DocketNumber： 2008-UP-521
Filed Date： 9/9/2008
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 10/22/2024
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Alex Claude Sheriff, Appellant.
Appeal from Edgefield County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court
Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-521
Submitted September 2, 2008 Filed
September 9, 2008
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Alex Claude Sheriff, appeals his convictions for possession of contraband, possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and criminal conspiracy. Sheriff argues the trial court erred in not allowing him to introduce evidence of his prior guilty pleas. We affirm.[1]
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sheriff was a prisoner at Trenton Correctional Institution in Edgefield. He was working on a road crew assisting with maintenance of an area park. The contraband officer for the prison had received information that the road crew was bringing drugs into the prison, so he went out to search the park. The officer discovered a brown bag containing marijuana and cocaine stuffed between the wall and the sink in the mens bathroom. The officer replaced the package with a decoy package and observed the road crew on its next assignment at the park. Sheriff and another inmate, Herbert Jones, walked directly to the bathroom, and officers found the decoy package stuffed inside Joness boot. Jones testified that he and Sheriff were in on the plan together. Sheriff eventually told the officers that he was involved with bringing the drugs into the prison.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court[,] and its ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice. State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48 (2006).
LAW/ANALYSIS
On appeal, Sheriff argues the trial court erred in not allowing him to introduce evidence of his prior guilty pleas to various criminal charges. The defense hoped to offer the evidence to show that Sheriff had pled guilty on previous occasions and therefore, if he was guilty of the present charges, would have pled guilty as well.[2] The trial court did not allow the proffered testimony regarding the disposition of the previous charges, because it would improperly bolster his credibility.
According to Rule 608(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, [s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness[s] credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. (emphasis added). The evidence may be introduced on cross-examination if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Id. Rule 609 deals strictly with using criminal convictions to impeach a witness. It provides that certain convictions are admissible, and notes that there is no distinction between a conviction resulting from a trial or a guilty plea. See SCRE 609 (For the purposes of this rule, a conviction includes a conviction resulting from a trial or any type of plea . . . .).
Applying these rules to the facts of this case, Rule 609 indicates that the disposition of Sheriffs prior charges is irrelevant. It only matters that he was ultimately convicted of the charges. Consequently, the evidence is inadmissible. See SCRE 402 (Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.).
The fact that Sheriff previously pled guilty is likewise inadmissible under Rule 608. If the act of pleading guilty is considered a specific act of conduct, it cannot be proved extrinsically to support the witnesss credibility. That is exactly what Sheriff was attempting to do by contrasting his prior behavior with his decision to go to trial on the charges in this case. Because Sheriffs guilty pleas were irrelevant under Rule 609 and would improperly bolster his credibility under Rule 608, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit Sheriffs testimony about his prior guilty pleas.
Based on the foregoing, the ruling of the circuit court is
AFFIRMED.
ANDERSON,
WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
[1] This case was decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
[2] The proffered testimony consisted of the following exchange:
Q. Mr. Sheriff, youve got the prior convictions that we spoke about, correct?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Were those convictions at trial or did you plead guilty?
A. I plead guilty.
Q. And have you plead not guilty to this charge?
A. To this charge?
Q. The one youre here for.
A. I plead not guilty.
Q. Why are you not pleading guilty to this charge?
A. Because Im not guilty of this charge.