The State, Respondent v. Spencer Leonard McHoney, Appellant (South Carolina 2001)

Summary

The court affirmed McHoney's murder conviction and life sentence, holding that the victim's identification of her attacker was admissible as both a dying declaration and an excited utterance. It also upheld exclusion of polygraph evidence, denial of the directed verdict motion, the reasonable-doubt instruction, and rulings concerning a leading question and a requested jury view. No separate opinions were filed.

Holding

Dying declaration and hearsay. The victim's identification of “SP” was properly admitted as a dying declaration because the circumstances supported an inference that she believed death was imminent; the fact that she survived for two weeks did not make the statement inadmissible. The statement was also admissible as an excited utterance because it was made while she remained under the continuing stress of the violent attack.

Polygraph evidence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the polygraph results because polygraph evidence was generally inadmissible at the time of trial due to unreliability, and McHoney failed to establish the requirements for admissibility under the applicable expert-evidence and relevance standards.

Directed verdict. The trial court properly denied the directed verdict motion because the State presented direct and substantial circumstantial evidence reasonably tending to prove McHoney's guilt.

Reasonable-doubt instruction. The reasonable-doubt instruction was constitutionally and legally sufficient; the phrase “real possibility that he is not guilty” did not lessen the State's burden because it followed an instruction requiring the jury to be firmly convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Leading question and witness bolstering. The claim was not preserved because defense counsel made no contemporaneous objection. In any event, the question did not warrant reversal because it was not an improper yes-or-no leading question and was cumulative of other evidence.

Requested jury view. The trial court properly denied the jury's request to visit the crime-scene location because the governing statute requires a party to request a jury view and, independently, the trial court reasonably found that a view was unnecessary for a just decision.

The State, Respondent v. Spencer Leonard McHoney, Appellant

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by