South Carolina evidence practice is organized under the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at S.C. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at S.C. R. Evid. 801, 802. That is what separates South Carolina evidence law from a generic national summary. Read South Carolina Rules of Evidence before the background sections below. Authenticity is a separate fight under S.C. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: S.C. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. S.C. R. Crim. P. 5 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Character evidence
Character evidence in South Carolina is governed by S.C. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
South Carolina character-evidence opinions
The STATE, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Thomas HASELDEN, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Thomas HASELDEN, Appellant, 353 S.C. 190 (2003)
…bject to this testimony on the grounds that it was improper character evidence below. He objected only on the basis of relevancy. Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for review. State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 485 S.E.2d 360 (1997) (defendant may not argue one ground below and another on appeal). In any event, Haselden has not demonstrated reversible error. Character evidenc…
On character evidence, The STATE, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Thomas HASELDEN, Appellant speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "He objected only on the basis of relevancy. Accordingly, this issue is not preserved for review. State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 485 S.E.2d 360 (1997) (defendant may not argue one ground below and another on appeal). In any event, Haselden has not demonstrated reversible error." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Larry Don NELSON, Petitioner
The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Larry Don NELSON, Petitioner, 331 S.C. 1 (1998)
…unky Brewster.4 Petitioner argued the evidence was improper character evidence and should be excluded. While initially, during a motion in limine hearing, the judge thought the offer of evidence was “ludicrous,” he changed his mind after the State put up the testimony of an expert on sexual trauma and abuse of children. In part, this witness testified about general characterist…
Practitioners open The STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Larry Don NELSON, Petitioner when South Carolina character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Brewster.4 Petitioner argued the evidence was improper character evidence and should be excluded." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Mar-Reece Aldean HUGHES, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Mar-Reece Aldean HUGHES, Appellant, 336 S.C. 585 (1999)
…ll at the time and therefore this evidence was not reliable character evidence. 1 We disagree. First, there was no contemporaneous objection to the introduction of this evidence at the sentencing phase of trial. The trial judge ruled in limine that the evidence was admissible. An in limine ruling, however, is not final and does not preserve the issue for appeal. State v. Schump…
Practitioners open The STATE, Respondent, v. Mar-Reece Aldean HUGHES, Appellant when South Carolina character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We disagree. First, there was no contemporaneous objection to the introduction of this evidence at the sentencing phase of trial. The trial judge ruled in limine that the evidence was admissible. An in limine ruling, however, is not final and does not preserve the issue for appeal." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Donny G. BROWN, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Donny G. BROWN, Appellant, 344 S.C. 70 (2001)
…e ground he was prejudiced by the improper admission of bad character evidence. We affirm. FACTS Victim was living in appellant’s home. The State put up evidence that the day before the killing, appellant and Victim argued over rent money. Two eyewitnesses, Jack Williams and Kelly Williams, testified they saw appellant hit Victim on the head several times with a blunt tool, lac…
The STATE, Respondent, v. Donny G. BROWN, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "We affirm. FACTS Victim was living in appellant’s home. The State put up evidence that the day before the killing, appellant and Victim argued over rent money." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Addie MITCHELL, Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent
Addie MITCHELL, Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, 298 S.C. 186 (1989)
…l was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of character evidence elicited from witnesses for the State. Mitchell testified at the trial. At trial, testimony was introduced concerning the appearance of Mitchell’s home and her conduct there. The murder did not occur at her home. Additional testimony was introduced alleging that Mitchell was a “Mafia” member. The pol…
South Carolina opinions such as Addie MITCHELL, Petitioner v. STATE of South Carolina, Respondent are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "State. Mitchell testified at the trial. At trial, testimony was introduced concerning the appearance of Mitchell’s home and her conduct there. The murder did not occur at her home. Additional testimony was introduced alleging that Mitchell was a “Mafia” member." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Wesley SMITH, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Wesley SMITH, Appellant, 391 S.C. 353 (2011)
…itations omitted). The rule is often explained in terms of “propensity,” in that the rule prevents a defendant from being found guilty simply because of his propensity to commit similar crimes. “The State may not show defendant’s prior trouble with the law, specific criminal acts, or ill name among his neighbors, even though such facts might logically be persuasive that he is b…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Wesley SMITH, Appellant are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "The rule is often explained in terms of “propensity,” in that the rule prevents a defendant from being found guilty simply because of his propensity to commit similar crimes." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Thomas Wayne RICHARDSON, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Thomas Wayne RICHARDSON, Appellant, 358 S.C. 586 (2004)
….2d 716, 718-19 (1998) (Both rules [Lyle and that regarding character evidence] are grounded on the policy that character evidence is not admissible “for purposes of proving that the accused possesses a criminal character or has a propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged.” (quoting State v. Peake, 302 S.C. 378, 380, 396 S.E.2d 362, 363 (1990))). We disagree with…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Thomas Wayne RICHARDSON, Appellant are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Both rules [Lyle and that regarding character evidence] are grounded on the policy that character evidence is not admissible “for purposes of proving that the accused possesses a criminal character or has a propensity to commit the crime with which he is charged.” (quoting State v." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in South Carolina are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under S.C. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
South Carolina hearsay opinions
The STATE, Respondent, v. Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant, 286 S.C. 572 (1985)
…l conduct. He alleges prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony against him. We affirm. The victim told the police her assailant was wearing a dark colored jacket or shirt. She later identified appellant from a photographic line-up. Appellant’s wife consented to a search of their home. At trial, a police officer who searched appellant’s home testified he was unabl…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Perry Renard MITCHELL, Appellant are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "He alleges prejudicial error in the admission of hearsay testimony against him. We affirm. The victim told the police her assailant was wearing a dark colored jacket or shirt. She later identified appellant from a photographic line-up." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Thomas Edward JENNINGS, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Thomas Edward JENNINGS, Appellant, 394 S.C. 473 (2011)
…ically, appellant argues the reports contained inadmissible hearsay that improperly bolstered the children’s testimony, that they impermissibly allowed the forensic interviewer to vouch for the credibility of the children, and that their admission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree. A. Written reports as inadmissible hearsay Appellant first argues the trial co…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Thomas Edward JENNINGS, Appellant are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "ically, appellant argues the reports contained inadmissible hearsay that improperly bolstered the children’s testimony, that they impermissibly allowed the forensic interviewer to vouch for the credibility of the children, and that their admission was not harmless beyond a reason" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE, Respondent, v. William Gary BLACKBURN, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. William Gary BLACKBURN, Appellant, 271 S.C. 324 (1978)
…allowed into evidence under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. In order to qualify as a part of the res gestae, a statement must be substantially' contemporaneous with the litigated transaction and be the spontaneous utterance of the mind while under the active, immediate influence of the event. See McCormick on Evidence, (2d) Ed., p. 686 et seq.; Marshall v. Thomaso…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. William Gary BLACKBURN, Appellant are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "In order to qualify as a part of the res gestae, a statement must be substantially' contemporaneous with the litigated transaction and be the spontaneous utterance of the mind while under the active, immediate influence of the event. See McCormick on Evidence, (2d) Ed., p." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Robert J. CAPROOD, Respondent, v. the STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner
Robert J. CAPROOD, Respondent, v. the STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner, 338 S.C. 103 (2000)
…s right to cross examine witnesses and allowing prejudicial hearsay evidence? II. Did the PCR court err in granting relief on the grounds that defense counsel was deficient in not moving for a mistrial or objecting when witnesses for the State referred to other crimes Respondent may have committed? DISCUSSION I. Waiver of Right of Cross Examination The PCR court ruled defense c…
On hearsay, Robert J. CAPROOD, Respondent, v. the STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "II. Did the PCR court err in granting relief on the grounds that defense counsel was deficient in not moving for a mistrial or objecting when witnesses for the State referred to other crimes Respondent may have committed?" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Eddie LINDSEY, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Eddie LINDSEY, Appellant, 394 S.C. 354 (2011)
…sey appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting (1) hearsay that improperly bolstered the officer’s testimony and (2) Lindsey’s written statement into evidence. We affirm. 1 FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lindsey proceeded to trial on charges arising from the robbery of King’s ABC Liquor Store (the liquor store). Three days after the robbery, Investigator John Zamberlin (Inve…
Practitioners open The STATE, Respondent, v. Eddie LINDSEY, Appellant when South Carolina hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Lindsey’s written statement into evidence. We affirm. 1 FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY Lindsey proceeded to trial on charges arising from the robbery of King’s ABC Liquor Store (the liquor store)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
William Leroy HAMILTON, Respondent, v. BOB BENNETT FORD, Employer, and South Carolina Automobile Association
…s’ decision addressing the admissibility of Sandra Powell’s hearsay testimony and dispense with further briefing. In all other respects, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. During the hearing before the single commissioner, Powell, an employee of Bob Bennett Ford’s insurer, testified that she called Bob Bennett Ford and asked Mr. Keith, who was a manager at Bob Ben…
South Carolina opinions such as William Leroy HAMILTON, Respondent, v. BOB BENNETT FORD, Employer, and South Carolina Automobile Association are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Sandra Powell’s hearsay testimony and dispense with further briefing. In all other respects, the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Darryl Lamont HOLMES, Appellant
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Darryl Lamont HOLMES, Appellant, 342 S.C. 113 (2000)
…court improperly allowed the State to introduce prejudicial hearsay evidence against him. We agree and reverse appellant's convictions. FACTS Appellant was indicted for murder, conspiracy, and felony accessory before the fact for his alleged participation in the murder and attempted robbery of George Lollis. The facts of this case are fully set out in State v. Fuller, 337 S.C.…
STATE of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Darryl Lamont HOLMES, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "State to introduce prejudicial hearsay evidence against him. We agree and reverse appellant's convictions. FACTS Appellant was indicted for murder, conspiracy, and felony accessory before the fact for his alleged participation in the murder and attempted robbery of George Lollis." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. South Carolina treats them under S.C. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
South Carolina party-admission opinions
The STATE, Respondent, v. Joseph KELSEY, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Joseph KELSEY, Appellant, 331 S.C. 50 (1998)
…place at Kirchner’s house on July 11 & 12; and (5) Kelsey’s admission that he was the one who placed the pipe bomb into Richey’s mouth. Therefore, when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the trial court correctly denied Kelsey’s motion for a directed verdict on the murder charge. 2 B. Conspiracy Conspiracy is defined as the “combination between two…
The STATE, Respondent, v. Joseph KELSEY, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Kirchner’s house on July 11 & 12; and (5) Kelsey’s admission that he was the one who placed the pipe bomb into Richey’s mouth." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Bryan O’Neal SULLIVAN, James Charles Dugan, John Ray Etheridge, Ralph Dennis Nichols
…nts argue the State did not lay a proper foundation for the admission of the black portfolio. This is without merit. The trial judge ruled the portfolio was admissible after the State proved the items were found in a motel room previously occupied by the appellants, *49the room had been searched by police officers the night before, had been locked after the search and the items…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Bryan O’Neal SULLIVAN, James Charles Dugan, John Ray Etheridge, Ralph Dennis Nichols are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "State did not lay a proper foundation for the admission of the black portfolio. This is without merit." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Eddie Wayne ELDRIDGE, Charles Louis Beaudrot, Russie Beaudrot Young, Bernard H. Padgett, Homer Charles Walker, and
…property taxes, and (3) the letter could not constitute an admission *431 on the part of the Appellants, because the Railroad is not a party to this lawsuit. They also argue the letter “is of no probative value in this matter.” The trial judge admitted Hawkins’s letter pursuant to Southern Ry. v. Howell, 79 S.C. 281, 60 S.E. 677 (1908), which involved a lawsuit between a railr…
Practitioners open Eddie Wayne ELDRIDGE, Charles Louis Beaudrot, Russie Beaudrot Young, Bernard H. Padgett, Homer Charles Walker, and when South Carolina party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Appellants, because the Railroad is not a party to this lawsuit. They also argue the letter “is of no probative value in this matter.” The trial judge admitted Hawkins’s letter pursuant to Southern Ry. v. Howell, 79 S.C. 281, 60 S.E." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Gosa v. Southern Ry.
Gosa v. Southern Ry., 67 S.C. 347 (1903)
…says Phillips, ‘the ultimate fact to be proved, and not an admission of some other fact.’ 1 Phil. Ev., 381. ‘But it must be remembered,’ says Greenleaf, ‘that the admission of the agent cannot always be assimilated to the admission of the principal. The party’s own admission, whenever made, may be given in evidence against him, but the admission or declaration of his agent bin…
On party admissions, Gosa v. Southern Ry. speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "Phillips, ‘the ultimate fact to be proved, and not an admission of some other fact.’ 1 Phil. Ev., 381. ‘But it must be remembered,’ says Greenleaf, ‘that the admission of the agent cannot always be assimilated to the admission of the principal." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Gladden v. Keistler. — Cothran, J., dissenting
Gladden v. Keistler. — Cothran, J., dissenting, 141 S.C. 524 (1927)
…e, there was error on the part of the Circuit Judge, in the admission of this evidence, the verdict should be allowed to stand, and that is the issue presented by this appeal. There is no question as to the general rule that parol evidence which tends to contradict, vary, or alter the terms of a written instrument cannot be received; but to this general rule there are many exce…
Practitioners open Gladden v. Keistler. — Cothran, J., dissenting when South Carolina party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Circuit Judge, in the admission of this evidence, the verdict should be allowed to stand, and that is the issue presented by this appeal." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Snipes v. Augusta-Aiken Ry. & Electric Corporation Et Al. — Cothran, J., dissenting
…ted the testimony of the plaintiff, of the declarations and admissions of Cortez, as evidence against the defendant corporation, it was impossible for him, as long as he.allowed that evidence to remain in the case, to have granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Even if the Court could, assuming the truth of the employee’s statement indicating a deviation from th…
Practitioners open Snipes v. Augusta-Aiken Ry. & Electric Corporation Et Al. — Cothran, J., dissenting when South Carolina party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Cortez, as evidence against the defendant corporation, it was impossible for him, as long as he.allowed that evidence to remain in the case, to have granted the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert ANDERS, Petitioner
The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert ANDERS, Petitioner, 331 S.C. 474 (1998)
…a statement against penal interest; the Court further held admission of the statement did not violate Anders’ Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, since Simmons was available and testified at trial. DISCUSSION We agree with the Court of Appeals’ holding that Simmons’ admission to the crime in no way furthered the conspiracy. Accord United States v. Posner, 764 F.2d 1535 (11…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Robert ANDERS, Petitioner are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "Court further held admission of the statement did not violate Anders’ Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, since Simmons was available and testified at trial." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
A concrete South Carolina scenario
Here is one way the South Carolina pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A lawyer in South Carolina wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under S.C. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test S.C. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in S.C. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in S.C. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in S.C. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under S.C. R. Evid. 901, 902.
South Carolina keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Business records
The business-records exception under S.C. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
South Carolina business-records opinions
In the Matter of the CARE AND TREATMENT OF Peter E.J. HARVEY, Appellant
In the Matter of the CARE AND TREATMENT OF Peter E.J. HARVEY, Appellant, 355 S.C. 53 (2003)
…Log based on hearsay. He argued it did not comply with the business record hearsay exception since it contained personal judgments and opinions. See Rule 808(6), SCRE. The trial court, however, found it only contained “facts and data” and admitted the document. As part of Harvey’s case, he called Dr. Karl Bodtorf as an expert in forensic psychology. Dr. Bodtorf also evaluated…
In the Matter of the CARE AND TREATMENT OF Peter E.J. HARVEY, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Log based on hearsay. He argued it did not comply with the business record hearsay exception since it contained personal judgments and opinions. See Rule 808(6), SCRE. The trial court, however, found it only contained “facts and data” and admitted the document." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
TWELFTH RMA PARTNERS, L.P., Respondent, v. NATIONAL SAFE CORPORATION, Barbara B. Smith and Roy W. Smith, Appellants
…ay. We disagree. The master allowed the testimony under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The business records exception is found in both the South Carolina Code at § 19-5-510 (1985) and Rule 803(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. Both exceptions require that the evidence be given by a “custodian or other qualified witness.” Ms. Every testified that t…
South Carolina opinions such as TWELFTH RMA PARTNERS, L.P., Respondent, v. NATIONAL SAFE CORPORATION, Barbara B. Smith and Roy W. Smith, Appellants are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "We disagree. The master allowed the testimony under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The business records exception is found in both the South Carolina Code at § 19-5-510 (1985) and Rule 803(6) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
DEEP KEEL, LLC v. ATLANTIC PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Terry L. Rohlfing, Jerry T. Caldwell, and Bluffton Village
…540 S.E.2d 113, 121 (Ct.App.2000). The master relied on the business records exception to the hearsay rule to admit the loan documents. See Rule 803(6), SCRE; S.C.Code Ann. § 19-5-510 (2014). However, the master’s reliance on a hearsay exception was unnecessary because the loan documents were not hearsay in the first place. The loan documents form the basis of Deep Keel’s claim…
South Carolina opinions such as DEEP KEEL, LLC v. ATLANTIC PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Terry L. Rohlfing, Jerry T. Caldwell, and Bluffton Village are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "S.E.2d 113, 121 (Ct.App.2000). The master relied on the business records exception to the hearsay rule to admit the loan documents. See Rule 803(6), SCRE; S.C.Code Ann. § 19-5-510 (2014)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE v. William Mark BROCKMEYER
The STATE v. William Mark BROCKMEYER, 406 S.C. 324 (2013)
…upreme Court agreed, rejecting New Mexico’s reliance on the business record exception to rules against hearsay, and reversed the conviction. Id. at 2710-13. Concurring separately in Bullcoming, Justice Sotomayor emphasized that the BAC report at issue was testimonial in nature because its “ ‘primary purpose’ is evidentiary,” and therefore the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Cla…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE v. William Mark BROCKMEYER are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Court agreed, rejecting New Mexico’s reliance on the business record exception to rules against hearsay, and reversed the conviction. Id. at 2710-13." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard P. ANDERSON, Petitioner
The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard P. ANDERSON, Petitioner, 386 S.C. 120 (2009)
…hearsay, either under the public records exception 5 or the business record exception. 6 Id. at 173, 359 S.E.2d at 281. We, however, emphasized that the proponent of the evidence must still comply with authentication requirements. Id. Given the State neither attempted to lay a foundation that the fingerprints on the master file card were in fact those of Rich, nor sought to int…
On business records, The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard P. ANDERSON, Petitioner speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "Id. at 173, 359 S.E.2d at 281. We, however, emphasized that the proponent of the evidence must still comply with authentication requirements. Id." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The STATE, Respondent v. Deborah SARVIS, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent v. Deborah SARVIS, Appellant, 317 S.C. 102 (1994)
…hearsay. Sarvis argues that the document is admissible as a business record. The Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act provides an exception to the hearsay rule for certain records of an act, event, or condition. S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-510 (1985). The statute, however, contains prerequisites to admission of the record. The custodian of the Conway Hospital records testified sh…
Practitioners open The STATE, Respondent v. Deborah SARVIS, Appellant when South Carolina business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Sarvis argues that the document is admissible as a business record. The Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act provides an exception to the hearsay rule for certain records of an act, event, or condition. S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-510 (1985)." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE v. Demario Monte THOMPSON
The STATE v. Demario Monte THOMPSON, 420 S.C. 386 (2017)
…xclusion applies. Rule 802, SCRE. One such exception is the business records exception, which states: **397A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it…
On business records, The STATE v. Demario Monte THOMPSON speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "xclusion applies. Rule 802, SCRE. One such exception is the business records exception, which states: **397A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The STATE v. Michael Levant MEALOR
The STATE v. Michael Levant MEALOR, 825 S.E.2d 53 (2018)
…logs into evidence because the records (1) did not meet the business records exception to hearsay, (2) lacked a foundation, and (3) violated Rule 403, SCRE. We disagree and address each argument in turn. "The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Pagan , 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 2…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE v. Michael Levant MEALOR are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "Rule 403, SCRE. We disagree and address each argument in turn. 'The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.' State v. Pagan , 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in South Carolina trial practice.
Excited utterance — S.C. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — S.C. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — S.C. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under S.C. R. Evid. 804(a), South Carolina opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
South Carolina dying-declaration opinions
The STATE, Respondent, v. Spencer Leonard McHONEY, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Spencer Leonard McHONEY, Appellant, 344 S.C. 85 (2001)
…I. Did the trial judge err by allowing into evidence, as a dying declaration, the victim’s identification of “SP” as her killer? II. Did the trial judge err by excluding evidence McHoney passed a polygraph test when questioned about the victim’s death? McHoney sent the Court a pro se brief raising the following four additional issues: Did the trial judge err by denying McHoney…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Spencer Leonard McHONEY, Appellant are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "I. Did the trial judge err by allowing into evidence, as a dying declaration, the victim’s identification of “SP” as her killer?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Lee.
State v. Lee., 58 S.C. 335 (1900)
…he defendant. XII. His Honor erred in admitting the alleged dying declarations of Dr. H. J. Lee, testified to by the said witness, Sim. Woods, because it did not appear that at the time the alleged dying declarations were made, the deceased believed or was informed that death was imminent or impending, and because said alleged dying declarations did not relate to the circumstan…
Practitioners open State v. Lee. when South Carolina dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "XII. His Honor erred in admitting the alleged dying declarations of Dr. H. J. Lee, testified to by the said witness, Sim." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Brown Et Al.
State v. Brown Et Al., 108 S.C. 490 (1918)
…aid testimony was hearsay, and that the rule with regard to dying declarations had not been complied with, in that it did not appear that said Freize was in imminent danger of death, and was without hope of recovery.” Hendrix Rector, sheriff of Greenville county, testified as follows: “Was notified of the killing. Went to the home of Freize shortly after daylight. * Freize…
On dying declaration, State v. Brown Et Al. speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "Freize was in imminent danger of death, and was without hope of recovery.” Hendrix Rector, sheriff of Greenville county, testified as follows: “Was notified of the killing. Went to the home of Freize shortly after daylight." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE v. BANISTER
STATE v. BANISTER, 35 S.C. 290 (1892)
…ngs as to the admissibility of certain testimony offered as dying declarations of the deceased, the third and fourth grounds being the ones principally relied upon as showing such error. It appears that the deceased was shot on Thursday afternoon, the 24th of December, 1890, and died of the wound on the following' Monday morning. On the evening he was shot he made declarations…
Practitioners open STATE v. BANISTER when South Carolina dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "It appears that the deceased was shot on Thursday afternoon, the 24th of December, 1890, and died of the wound on the following' Monday morning." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Davis.
State v. Davis., 138 S.C. 532 (1927)
…sire to refer to the matter of the admission of the alleged dying declaration. In State v. Johnson, 26 S. C., 152; 1 S. E., 510, the rules in regard to the admission of dying declarations are thus stated: “(1) That death must be imminent at the time the declarations in question are made. (2) That the declarant must be so fully aware of this as to be without any hope of life. St…
State v. Davis. is worth reading on South Carolina dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "In State v. Johnson, 26 S. C., 152; 1 S. E., 510, the rules in regard to the admission of dying declarations are thus stated: “(1) That death must be imminent at the time the declarations in question are made." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE v. TAYLOR
STATE v. TAYLOR, 56 S.C. 360 (1900)
…itten statement seems to have been offered in evidence as a dying declaration, and was received without objection. 1 The exceptions will now be stated and considered separately. “i. Because the presiding Judge erred in ruling that Jacob Enlow, a witness offered in behalf of the defendant, could not testify as to what Mrs. Mary E. Taylor, the deceased, said to- him in reference…
South Carolina opinions such as STATE v. TAYLOR are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "The exceptions will now be stated and considered separately. “i. Because the presiding Judge erred in ruling that Jacob Enlow, a witness offered in behalf of the defendant, could not testify as to what Mrs. Mary E." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE, Respondent, v. W. M. BETHEA, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. W. M. BETHEA, Appellant, 241 S.C. 16 (1962)
…udge and the admission in evidence of certain statements as dying declarations. These issues may be better understood after a review of the pertinent evidence, most of it from appellant’s testimony. The decedent was a widow, and according to appellant’s testimony, had been his mistress for some eight years prior to her death. She lived near Bennettsville in a home which he had…
The STATE, Respondent, v. W. M. BETHEA, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "These issues may be better understood after a review of the pertinent evidence, most of it from appellant’s testimony. The decedent was a widow, and according to appellant’s testimony, had been his mistress for some eight years prior to her death." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under S.C. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
South Carolina medical-statement opinions
Oliver K. GASKINS, Respondent, v. BLUE CROSS-BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Appellant
…diagnostic and therapeutic facilities for the surgical and medical diagnosis, treatment and care of injured and sick persons by or under the supervision of a staff of Physicians who are duly licensed to practice medicine, and which continuously provides twenty-four (24) hour-a-day nursing service by registered graduate nurses physically present and on duty, and which is not, o…
Oliver K. GASKINS, Respondent, v. BLUE CROSS-BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "diagnostic and therapeutic facilities for the surgical and medical diagnosis, treatment and care of injured and sick persons by or under the supervision of a staff of Physicians who are duly licensed to practice medicine, and which continuously provides twenty-four (24) hour-a-da" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Dushun STATEN, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Dushun STATEN, Appellant, 364 S.C. 7 (2005)
…f courts have found that statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment are nontestimonial. In State v. Vaught, 268 Neb. 316, 682 N.W.2d 284 (2004), a four-year-old victim of sexual abuse informed a physician during a medical examination about the identity of the defendant. The Supreme Court of Nebraska decided the statements by the child to the physician wer…
The STATE, Respondent, v. Dushun STATEN, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "In State v. Vaught, 268 Neb. 316, 682 N.W.2d 284 (2004), a four-year-old victim of sexual abuse informed a physician during a medical examination about the identity of the defendant." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The STATE v. Ricky Lee BLACKWELL
The STATE v. Ricky Lee BLACKWELL, 420 S.C. 127 (2017)
…formation contained in the notes was not in the nature of a medical diagnosis, the chaplains were available as witnesses, and the notes were more prejudicial than probative. The trial court granted the State’s motion, finding the notes constituted inadmissible hearsay as they were not necessary to medical treatment or diagnosis26 and were in the form of an opinion. Blackwell co…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE v. Ricky Lee BLACKWELL are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "The trial court granted the State’s motion, finding the notes constituted inadmissible hearsay as they were not necessary to medical treatment or diagnosis26 and were in the form of an opinion." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ex Parte Dept. of Health & Env. Control
Ex Parte Dept. of Health & Env. Control, 350 S.C. 243 (2002)
…V positive. In our opinion, HIV tests taken for purposes of medical diagnosis before any charges are pending are trustworthy and should be admitted as business records without a chain of custody.[4] Accordingly, Doe's HIV test was reliable and is admissible as a business record. II. Counseling Records The Court of Appeals limited the admission of Doe's medical records to the in…
Practitioners open Ex Parte Dept. of Health & Env. Control when South Carolina medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "V positive. In our opinion, HIV tests taken for purposes of medical diagnosis before any charges are pending are trustworthy and should be admitted as business records without a chain of custody.[4] Accordingly, Doe's HIV test was reliable and is admissible as a business record." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Johnny CRAWFORD and Joan Wilson, Plaintiffs, of Whom Johnny Crawford Is, Appellant, v. Janice HENDERSON, Respondent
…medical doctor and, therefore, was not qualified to give a medical diagnosis. The judge overruled the objection. Smith testified Crawford was not suffering from bursitis, thus, implying Crawford was still experiencing the effects of the work-related injury on that day. “For a court to find a witness competent to testify as an expert, the witness must be better qualified than t…
Practitioners open Johnny CRAWFORD and Joan Wilson, Plaintiffs, of Whom Johnny Crawford Is, Appellant, v. Janice HENDERSON, Respondent when South Carolina medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The judge overruled the objection. Smith testified Crawford was not suffering from bursitis, thus, implying Crawford was still experiencing the effects of the work-related injury on that day." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE, Respondent, v. James SIMMONS Jr., Petitioner.
The STATE, Respondent, v. James SIMMONS Jr., Petitioner., 423 S.C. 552 (2018)
…a hearsay exception for statements made in connection with medical diagnosis or treatment. The court of appeals affirmed, first questioning whether Petitioner's challenge was preserved, and then concluding the pediatrician's testimony was properly admitted. We reverse the court of appeals and remand for a new trial. For the reasons we will explain, Petitioner preserved his obj…
The STATE, Respondent, v. James SIMMONS Jr., Petitioner. is worth reading on South Carolina medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "The court of appeals affirmed, first questioning whether Petitioner's challenge was preserved, and then concluding the pediatrician's testimony was properly admitted. We reverse the court of appeals and remand for a new trial." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Frances Irene TODD, Petitioner, v. Barbara C. JOYNER, Respondent
Frances Irene TODD, Petitioner, v. Barbara C. JOYNER, Respondent, 385 S.C. 421 (2009)
…t is available as a witness: (4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment; provid…
Practitioners open Frances Irene TODD, Petitioner, v. Barbara C. JOYNER, Respondent when South Carolina medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Use of depositions at trial
S.C. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. S.C. R. Crim. P. 5 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
South Carolina deposition / former-testimony opinions
Helen S. STONE, Respondent, v. GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Executor of the Estate of Eugene E. Stone, Appellant
…lower court erred by admitting into evidence the discovery deposition of Howard W. Paschal, Jr., a private investigator employed by Mrs.- Stone. Rule 87 Section D(3) of the Circuit Court Rules provides when a deposition may be introduced into evidence at trial: The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the Court finds: (1)…
Helen S. STONE, Respondent, v. GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Executor of the Estate of Eugene E. Stone, Appellant is worth reading on South Carolina deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Howard W. Paschal, Jr., a private investigator employed by Mrs.- Stone." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
James Floyd WEBSTER, Respondent, v. HOLLY HILL LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant
James Floyd WEBSTER, Respondent, v. HOLLY HILL LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant, 268 S.C. 416 (1977)
…judgment non obstante veredicto, and (2) the admission of a deposition of Duncan, a non-party who was not present at trial. We reverse the lower court and remand for a new trial. *419Webster injured his foot and back at separate times while working for Holly Hill. He was released by Holly Hill, apparently because his back injury kept him from working at full capacity. He then f…
Practitioners open James Floyd WEBSTER, Respondent, v. HOLLY HILL LUMBER COMPANY, Appellant when South Carolina deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Duncan, a non-party who was not present at trial. We reverse the lower court and remand for a new trial. *419Webster injured his foot and back at separate times while working for Holly Hill." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Shirley Leder OSTERNECK, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Guy Kenneth Osterneck, Appellant, v. Myles N
…ho prepared the tax return for Father’s estate, stated in a deposition: So all of us met — Myles, Guy [Kenneth], Bob, and his mother. All these Osternecks and myself met in Guy’s office. And that’s when they told me that they had decided that they had made a swap of the CD for the — for the house in her name. So — and for me to go ahead and make the tax *579 return based on — a…
Shirley Leder OSTERNECK, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Guy Kenneth Osterneck, Appellant, v. Myles N is worth reading on South Carolina deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Father’s estate, stated in a deposition: So all of us met — Myles, Guy [Kenneth], Bob, and his mother. All these Osternecks and myself met in Guy’s office. And that’s when they told me that they had decided that they had made a swap of the CD for the — for the house in her name." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Brenda WILLIAMS v. Catherine Mims BARRY and Kate M. Barry
Brenda WILLIAMS v. Catherine Mims BARRY and Kate M. Barry, 271 S.C. 295 (1978)
…st complains of the refusal of the trial judge to allow the deposition of an absent witness to be read to the jury under the applicable provisions of Rule 87 of the Circuit Court Rules. The only foundation laid by the appellant to justify the use of the deposition was the testimony of another witness that he had not seen the deposed witness in “maybe six months” and the testimo…
Brenda WILLIAMS v. Catherine Mims BARRY and Kate M. Barry is worth reading on South Carolina deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "st complains of the refusal of the trial judge to allow the deposition of an absent witness to be read to the jury under the applicable provisions of Rule 87 of the Circuit Court Rules. The only foundation laid by the appellant to justify the use of the deposition was the testimo" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Limited Certificate of Admission for Military Spouse Attorneys
Limited Certificate of Admission for Military Spouse Attorneys (2016)
…orney shall not appear as counsel in any hearing, trial, or deposition in a case pending before a court of this State until the attorney’s trial experiences required by this rule have been approved by the Supreme Court. An attorney whose trial experiences have not been approved may appear as counsel if the attorney is accompanied by an attorney whose trial experiences have been…
Practitioners open Limited Certificate of Admission for Military Spouse Attorneys when South Carolina deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State until the attorney’s trial experiences required by this rule have been approved by the Supreme Court." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
In Re Limited Certificate of Admission for Military Spouse Attorneys
In Re Limited Certificate of Admission for Military Spouse Attorneys, 416 S.C. 17 (2016)
…orney shall not appear as counsel in any hearing, trial, or deposition in a case pending before a court of this State until the attorney’s trial experiences required by this rule have been approved by the Supreme Court. An attorney whose trial experiences have not been approved may appear as counsel if the attorney is accompanied by an attorney whose trial experiences have been…
South Carolina opinions such as In Re Limited Certificate of Admission for Military Spouse Attorneys are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "State until the attorney’s trial experiences required by this rule have been approved by the Supreme Court." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
SC DEPT. OF SOC. SERV. v. Wheaton
SC DEPT. OF SOC. SERV. v. Wheaton, 474 S.E.2d 156 (1996)
…ifies at the proceeding or testifies by means of videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television, and at the time of the testimony the child is subject to cross-examination about the statement; or (2)(a) the child is found by the court to be unavailable to testify on any of these grounds: (i) the child's death; (ii) the child's physical or mental disability; (iii) the existe…
Practitioners open SC DEPT. OF SOC. SERV. v. Wheaton when South Carolina deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ifies at the proceeding or testifies by means of videotaped deposition or closed-circuit television, and at the time of the testimony the child is subject to cross-examination about the statement; or (2)(a) the child is found by the court to be unavailable to testify on any of th" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under S.C. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
South Carolina criminal and civil trials turn on authenticated forensic reports, title documents, and body-camera footage under S.C. R. Evid. 901–902.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every South Carolina trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for South Carolina trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
South Carolina authenticity opinions
DEEP KEEL, LLC v. ATLANTIC PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Terry L. Rohlfing, Jerry T. Caldwell, and Bluffton Village
…, Atlantic challenges the master’s admission of evidence on authentication and hearsay grounds. We affirm the judgment of foreclosure because we find the loan documents upon which the judgment was based were properly admitted into evidence. However, we reverse the deficiency judgment because the testimony of the amount remaining due on the note was hearsay. In addition, we vaca…
On authentication, DEEP KEEL, LLC v. ATLANTIC PRIVATE EQUITY GROUP, LLC, Terry L. Rohlfing, Jerry T. Caldwell, and Bluffton Village speaks to the South Carolina dispute in this passage: "Atlantic challenges the master’s admission of evidence on authentication and hearsay grounds. We affirm the judgment of foreclosure because we find the loan documents upon which the judgment was based were properly admitted into evidence." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
The STATE v. Fabian Lamichael R. GREEN
The STATE v. Fabian Lamichael R. GREEN, 427 S.C. 223 (2019)
…or. Because we conclude the Facebook messages were properly authenticated and the bailiff's misconduct did not affect the impartiality of the jury, we affirm. I. On the late afternoon of May 8, 2016, seventeen-year-old Edwin Diaz Charinos (Victim) left his parents' home driving a Ford Mustang and never returned. After his family filed a missing persons report, police reviewed d…
Practitioners open The STATE v. Fabian Lamichael R. GREEN when South Carolina authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Because we conclude the Facebook messages were properly authenticated and the bailiff's misconduct did not affect the impartiality of the jury, we affirm. I." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard P. ANDERSON, Petitioner
The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard P. ANDERSON, Petitioner, 386 S.C. 120 (2009)
…rgued the trial judge erred in admitting into evidence an unauthenticated ten-print card as maintained in the “Automated Fingerprint Identification System” (AFIS). The Court of Appeals affirmed Anderson’s conviction and sentence. State v. Anderson, 378 S.C. 243, 662 S.E.2d 461 (Ct.App.2008). This Court granted *123 Anderson’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the deci…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard P. ANDERSON, Petitioner are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Automated Fingerprint Identification System” (AFIS). The Court of Appeals affirmed Anderson’s conviction and sentence. State v. Anderson, 378 S.C. 243, 662 S.E.2d 461 (Ct.App.2008)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The STATE v. Donte Samar BROWN
The STATE v. Donte Samar BROWN, 424 S.C. 479 (2018)
…ITTREDGE : *482The central issue before the Court concerns authentication of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring evidence. Specifically, is the requirement for authentication satisfied by testimony that GPS data is accurate because "[w]e use it in court all the time"? The answer is an unqualified "no." 737A Zaxby's restaurant in Goose Creek, South Carolina, was robbed…
The STATE v. Donte Samar BROWN is worth reading on South Carolina authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "ITTREDGE : **482The central issue before the Court concerns authentication of Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring evidence. Specifically, is the requirement for authentication satisfied by testimony that GPS data is accurate because '[w]e use it in court all the time'?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
ELWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO., by Harold L. Elrod, Its President and Principal Stockholders, as a Duly Qualified
…tedly compilations of other plats. Not one of the plats was authenticated by any witness as having been made from an actual survey upon the ground of any of the areas involved. Two or three of the plats were made by the witness Felkel, but admittedly his plats were compilations and not based on any actual survey by him. Sources for the compilation of these plats, and the subseq…
Practitioners open ELWOOD CONSTRUCTION CO., by Harold L. Elrod, Its President and Principal Stockholders, as a Duly Qualified when South Carolina authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Not one of the plats was authenticated by any witness as having been made from an actual survey upon the ground of any of the areas involved." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE v. James Bubba PATTERSON
The STATE v. James Bubba PATTERSON, 425 S.C. 500 (2019)
…rial court erred in (1) admitting DNA evidence that was not authenticated through proper chain of custody testimony, (2) admitting DNA evidence that constituted improper evidence of a prior bad act, and (3) indicating to the jury during opening statements that a trial was "a search for the truth." We affirm. FACTS On the afternoon of May 9, 2012, law enforcement responded to a…
Practitioners open The STATE v. James Bubba PATTERSON when South Carolina authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "DNA evidence that was not authenticated through proper chain of custody testimony, (2) admitting DNA evidence that constituted improper evidence of a prior bad act, and (3) indicating to the jury during opening statements that a trial was 'a search for the truth.' We affirm." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard Philyaw ANDERSON, Appellant
The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard Philyaw ANDERSON, Appellant, 378 S.C. 243 (2008)
…on. Anderson argues the trial court erred in admitting an unauthenticated rolled ten-print card as maintained in the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) into evidence. We affirm. 1 FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On August 15, 2003, Pricilla Ward discovered someone had broken into the home she shared with her husband. The intruder had gained access to the home by b…
South Carolina opinions such as The STATE, Respondent, v. Richard Philyaw ANDERSON, Appellant are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Anderson argues the trial court erred in admitting an unauthenticated rolled ten-print card as maintained in the automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) into evidence. We affirm." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
EX PARTE SWEARINGEN
EX PARTE SWEARINGEN, 13 S.C. 74 (1880)
…avit made before a magistrate in the State of Georgia, duly authenticated by the governor of that state, accompanies the requisition, in which the petitioner is charged with having committed the crime of riot in Georgia. The constitution of the United States, Article IV., Section 2, provides that, “A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, who shall fle…
Practitioners open EX PARTE SWEARINGEN when South Carolina authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "State of Georgia, duly authenticated by the governor of that state, accompanies the requisition, in which the petitioner is charged with having committed the crime of riot in Georgia. The constitution of the United States, Article IV." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under S.C. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent South Carolina appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
South Carolina starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under S.C. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
South Carolina retains localized rape-shield and character rules. Appellate review follows abuse-of-discretion standards common to FRE jurisdictions.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in South Carolina?
South Carolina applies the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. South Carolina's rules mirror the FRE; S.C. R. Evid. 401–902 govern circuit and summary court trials.
How do South Carolina courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under S.C. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in South Carolina?
Party-opponent statements under S.C. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under S.C. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in South Carolina?
S.C. R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. S.C. R. Crim. P. 5 addresses criminal discovery; deposition testimony at trial requires S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. South Carolina authenticity practice starts with S.C. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under S.C. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under S.C. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.