State v. Blurton - 342 S.C. 500, 537 S.E.2d 291 (Ct. App. 2000)

Rule:

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. S.C. R. Evid. 801(c). Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A statement that is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted should not be excluded as hearsay.

Facts:

Appellant robbed the store and stole a customer's car at gun point. Appellant believed that he was working as a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative. Appellant's counsel simply attempted to prove appellant genuinely believed he was a CIA operative and thus lacked criminal intent. Appellant attempted to introduce taped telephone conversations between appellant and alleged CIA employee, but the trial court excluded the tapes. The trial court sentenced appellant to 3 life sentences for the kidnapping and armed robbery convictions, 10 years for grand larceny, and 3 years for failing to stop for a blue light. Appellant challenged his convictions. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in excluding the taped telephone conversations between appellant and the alleged CIA employee as evidence, thereby warranting the reversal of appellant’s conviction? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The judgment was reversed and remanded. The court noted that the tapes were not offered to prove the veracity of any statements made. Rather, they were offered to show that appellant had been led to believe the robbery was staged and that his actions were sanctioned by the CIA. Because the conversations would have added credence to appellant's defense that he lacked criminal intent and were not hearsay, the trial court erred in excluding them. The investigator's opinion was on the ultimate factual issue in the case, whether appellant believed he was working for the CIA and lacked criminal intent. Thus, the trial court's refusal to admit the testimony was not reversible error. Prosecutor's comments alone were not reversible error, but coupled with the excluded evidence, a reversal was warranted.