The State, Respondent v. Richard Eugene Alexander, Appellant

Summary

The court held that the victim's testimony about emotional trauma was relevant to the alleged sexual offense but should have been excluded because its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. The court also abolished South Carolina's rule permitting a criminal defendant to obtain a new trial based on inconsistent verdicts, holding that Alexander suffered no prejudice from the verdicts. The convictions were reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.