State v. Phillip R. Lawson

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Phillip Ryan Lawson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-001190

Appeal From York County
William A. McKinnon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-019
Heard November 6, 2025 – Filed January 21, 2026

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Attorney for Capital Appeals David
Alexander, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Joshua
Abraham Edwards, both of Columbia; and Solicitor
Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellant Phillip Ryan Lawson appeals his convictions for
first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor, second-degree CSC with
a minor, and third-degree CSC with a minor. Lawson argues the trial court erred by
issuing a jury instruction regarding witness credibility that constituted an improper
charge on the facts. We affirm.

FACTS

Lawson was indicted in 2021 for charges related to the sexual abuse of two
minors, Older Brother and Younger Brother, between the years of 2012 and 2020.

Older Brother, who was nineteen at the time of trial, testified he met Lawson's
son on the school bus around sixth grade, and their families became close. The
brothers often spent the night at Lawson's house and would sleep on a mattress on
the floor in Lawson's room.1 Older Brother testified the abuse started about a year
after he met Lawson. It began by Lawson showing the brothers his penis and
explaining "how" to touch it. It eventually progressed to oral sex; Older Brother
testified "[h]e had me do it to him and then sometimes he did it to me." He also
remembered Lawson performing oral sex on Younger Brother. Older Brother
testified that Lawson asked the brothers to perform sexual acts on each other but
they refused. He claimed the abuse stopped when he was around fourteen years old
after Lawson took him to the store to buy condoms and lubricant, because "I had a
general idea where that was headed and . . . I just flat out told him, I don't want to
do this."

Younger Brother, who was fifteen at trial, testified the abuse started when he
was five or six years old. Younger Brother went to a different school than the other
children and remembered Lawson touching him and asking him to touch Lawson
while they waited in the car at the bus stop for the other kids. Younger Brother
described Lawson asking him to perform oral sex "a lot," Lawson performing oral
sex on him, and Lawson showering with him. Younger Brother also testified about
one occurrence of anal sex.2 Like Older Brother, he testified that Lawson asked the
brothers to perform sexual acts on each other, but they refused.

1
Lawson's wife, who passed away before trial, suffered from medical issues and
slept on a mattress in the living room.
2
A forensic interviewer who examined Younger Brother testified from her notes
about Younger Brother's descriptions of oral sex and attempted anal sex. Even
though Younger Brother was twelve years old at the time of the interview, the trial
court found the substance of the interview was admissible because of his cognitive
deficiencies. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-175 (2014).
The abuse came to light in 2020 when the brothers' parents noticed changes
in Younger Brother's demeanor. Younger Brother testified his dad sat him down to
ask why his attitude had changed "for the worse," so he told his dad what Lawson
had been doing. The parents confronted Older Brother, who was in tenth grade at
the time, about whether he knew "any of this was going on." Older Brother denied
knowing anything about the alleged abuse but eventually told them what had
occurred. Before this point, the only person Older Brother had talked to about the
abuse was Lawson's son, who did not believe him.

Lawson's daughter testified that when the brothers would sleep over, Older
Brother either slept in the living room or in one of her brothers' rooms and Younger
Brother slept in Lawson's room. She remembered occasions when the door to
Lawson's room was locked or stuck and she described Younger Brother coming out
of the room "sweaty, flushed or red" and being told it was because "they were
wrestling." She testified she told her mom it made her uncomfortable that Younger
Brother always slept in Lawson's room; she also told this to Lawson, who told her
she was "overreacting and over-thinking it."

Lawson testified and denied the allegations. He confirmed that Younger
Brother and Older Brother would sleep on mattresses in his room when they spent
the night but denied anything sexual occurred, and he stated his bedroom door did
not lock. Lawson also testified that he has an "obvious" mole on his groin the size
of a shirt button and that he suffers from Peyronie's disease, which causes his penis
to bend at a 30- to 40-degree angle when erect. Lawson did not offer any other
evidence of this disease and claimed no one could corroborate it. When asked if
there was anything identifying about Lawson, Older Brother described a scar across
Lawson's chest, and a scar on his left leg. Younger Brother also described a scar on
Lawson's chest but did not mention any other distinguishing marks.

During the charge conference, Lawson raised an objection to the trial court's
"standard charge regarding credibility of witnesses and how they can be mistaken,"
noting the trial court "does charge that every time." Specifically, Lawson objected
to the final paragraph of the trial court's standard credibility charge which stated,

However, please keep in mind that a simple mistake does
not mean a witness wasn't telling the truth as he or she
remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some things
or remember them inaccurately. So if a witness misstated
something, you must decide whether it was because of an
innocent lapse in memory or an intentional deception. The
significance of your decision may depend on whether the
misstatement is about an important fact or about an
unimportant detail.

Lawson argued this language was "more keen in this case because it does come down
to [credibility] if they believe the two complaining witnesses or if they believe Mr.
Lawson." The trial court overruled the objection and issued a credibility instruction
that included the challenged language.3

3
The full charge on credibility stated:

Credibility and believability of the witnesses. When I say
that you must consider all the evidence, I do not mean you
must accept all the evidence as true or accurate. You
should decide whether you believe what each witness had
to say, how important that testimony was. In making those
decisions, you may believe or disbelieve any witness in
whole or in part. The number of witnesses testifying
concerning a particular point doesn't necessarily matter.

In deciding whether to believe a witness, I suggest you ask
yourself a few questions. Did the [witness] impress you
as one who is telling the truth? Did they have any
particular reason not to tell the truth, or have a personal
interest in the outcome of the case? Did the witness seem
to have a good memory? [Did] they have the opportunity
and ability to accurately observe the things they testified
to? Did the witness appear to understand the questions
clearly and answer them directly? If their testimony
differs from other witnesses or other evidence.

However, please keep in mind that a simple mistake does
not mean a witness wasn't telling the truth as he or she
remembers it. People naturally tend to forget some things
or remember them inaccurately. So if a witness misstated
something, you must decide whether it was because of an
innocent lapse in memory or an intentional deception. The
significance of your decision may depend on whether the
misstatement is about an important fact or about an
unimportant detail.
After deliberating for over a full day, the jury convicted Lawson of the charges
related to Younger Brother4 but acquitted him of the charges related to Older
Brother.5 The trial court sentenced Lawson to life imprisonment for first-degree
CSC with a minor, twenty-years' imprisonment for second-degree CSC with a minor,
and fifteen-years' imprisonment for third-degree CSC with a minor. This appeal
followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"An appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding jury
instructions unless the trial court abused its discretion." State v. Custer, 443 S.C.
172, 179, 903 S.E.2d 237, 240 (Ct. App. 2024) (quoting State v. Lemire, 406 S.C.
558, 565, 753 S.E.2d 247, 251 (Ct. App. 2013)). "When reviewing a jury charge for
error, an appellate court considers the charge as a whole; the charge must be
prejudicial to the appellant to warrant a new trial." State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493,
498, 787 S.E.2d 480, 482 (2016).

LAW AND ANALYSIS

"Judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact[] but shall declare
the law." S.C. Const. art. V, § 21. "Accordingly, it is not within the province of the
court to express an opinion to the jury on its view of the facts." Stukes, 416 S.C. at
499, 787 S.E.2d at 483. "[I]t is a general rule that a trial [court] should refrain from
all comment which tends to indicate to the jury [its] opinion on the credibility of the
witnesses, the weight of the evidence, or the guilt of the accused." State v. Jackson,
297 S.C. 523, 526, 377 S.E.2d 570, 572 (1989).

A. Merits

Lawson argues that because this entire case "rested on the credibility of the
complainants," the trial court erred by issuing a credibility charge that "bolstered the
credibility of the complainants and violated the constitutional provision against the
charges on the facts and the evidence." We disagree.

4
One count of first-degree CSC with a minor, one count of second-degree CSC with
a minor, and one count of third-degree CSC with a minor.
5
One count of second-degree CSC with a minor, one count of third-degree CSC with
a minor, and the dissemination of obscene material to a minor.
First, the trial court did not emphasize, elevate, or comment on a particular
fact in its charge, nor did it instruct the jury about an inference it could make from
the facts. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 443 S.C. 196, 198–99, 904 S.E.2d 448, 449
(2024) (holding the trial court erred by instructing the jury that malice can be inferred
when one kills another during the commission of a felony because it "improperly
elevated and commented to the jury upon a particular fact—the commission of a
felony"); State v. Burdette, 427 S.C. 490, 502–03, 832 S.E.2d 575, 582 (2019)
(holding the trial court shall not instruct the jury that it may infer malice from the
use of a deadly weapon because, in doing so, "the trial court has directly commented
upon facts in evidence, elevated those facts, and emphasized them to the jury"); State
v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 408, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) (holding trial courts may
not charge a jury on a defendant's flight because doing so places undue emphasis on
circumstantial evidence); State v. Cheeks, 401 S.C. 322, 328–29, 737 S.E.2d 480,
484 (2013) ("[C]harging a jury that 'actual knowledge of the presence of a drug is
strong evidence of intent to control its disposition or use' unduly emphasizes that
evidence[] and deprives the jury of its prerogative both to draw inferences and to
weigh evidence.").

Here, the trial court did not reference a particular fact in its charge. While
Lawson takes issue with the "simple mistakes" language, the trial court did not state
that the brothers—or any other witnesses—made mistakes.6 Unlike Brown,
Burdette, and Grant, in which the improper charges referred to particular facts in
evidence, the charge in this case included an aphorism that "a simple mistake does
not mean a witness wasn't telling the truth." Additionally, the trial court did not
instruct the jury to draw a particular inference. Lawson argues the language of the
charge "improperly excused" any mistakes made by the brothers. But the trial court
did not instruct the jury to excuse mistakes; rather, the trial court instructed the jury
that "if a witness misstated something," the jury had to "decide whether it was
because of an innocent lapse in memory or an intentional deception." If anything,
this statement simply reminded the jury of its "prerogative both to draw inferences
and to weigh evidence." Cheeks, 401 S.C. at 328–29, 737 S.E.2d at 484.

6
Nor can this court weigh the evidence to determine whether the children made
mistakes. Regarding Lawson's Peyronie's disease and other alleged defining
characteristics, we cannot know whether the jury believed this testimony. To claim
the children were "mistaken" in failing to describe these characteristics would
require us to weigh the evidence. Regarding differences or apparent discrepancies
in the brothers' testimonies, each brother testified about his own instances of abuse.
Describing any discrepancies as "mistakes" or "misstatements" would involve
credibility determinations, which we may not make.
Second, the trial court did not express an "opinion on the credibility of the
witnesses" nor the weight of their testimony. Jackson, 297 S.C. at 526, 377 S.E.2d
at 572. Lawson notes "[c]harges concerning the believability of witnesses in child
sexual abuse cases are particularly problematic because these cases almost always
turn into a referendum on whether the jury believes the complaining witness." As
an initial point, we agree that comments about the credibility of witnesses pose a
unique risk in cases like this one, when the record contains no physical evidence and
the outcome depends on whom the jury chooses to believe. See State v. Kromah,
401 S.C. 340, 359, 737 S.E.2d 490, 500 (2013) (holding a forensic interviewer
should not have been allowed to testify about a compelling finding of abuse because
it was the equivalent of stating the child was telling the truth); State v. Jennings, 394
S.C. 473, 480, 716 S.E.2d 91, 94 (2011) ("For an expert to comment on the veracity
of a child's accusations of sexual abuse is improper."). However, we cannot construe
a charge that neither singles out a particular witness (or category of witnesses) nor
references individual credibility as an opinion on the credibility of the witnesses or
as a comment on the weight of their testimony.

In State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 787 S.E.2d 480 (2016), our supreme court
held the trial court improperly commented on the facts of the case when it instructed
the jury on section 16-3-657 of the South Carolina Code (2015), which provides that
"[t]he testimony of the victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions [for criminal
sexual conduct]." The court explained,

By addressing the veracity of a victim's testimony in its
instructions, the trial court emphasizes the weight of that
evidence in the eyes of the jury. The charge invites the
jury to believe the victim, explaining that to confirm the
authenticity of her statement, the jury need only hear her
speak. Moreover, it is inescapable that this charge
confused the jury. Specifying this qualification applies to
one witness creates the inference the same is not true for
the others.

Stukes, 416 S.C. at 499–500, 787 S.E.2d at 483 (emphases added). This reasoning
highlights what the charge in the present case did not do: comment on the weight of
the brothers' testimony compared to Lawson's testimony. Unlike the challenged
language of the charge in Stukes that expressly applied only to the victim and the
forensic interviewers' comments in Kromah and Jennings that vouched specifically
for the children's credibility, the charge in this case applies to all witnesses and does
not reflect an opinion on the credibility of a particular witness or the weight of their
testimony.

Further, when considering the credibility charge as a whole, we find it unlikely
that the jury applied the instruction to only the brothers' testimony because the
credibility charge clearly applied to all witnesses. The trial court instructed the jury
to "consider all the evidence" and to "decide whether you believe what each witness
had to say." (emphasis added). It further charged, "In making those decisions, you
may believe or disbelieve any witness in whole or in part." (emphasis added). While
Lawson argues the jury must have relied on this charge to excuse "simple mistakes"
in the brothers' testimony, we are not convinced that a reasonable juror would have
interpreted this language as an opinion on only their credibility but not Lawson's.

In sum, we hold the charge was not erroneous because the trial court did not
put its finger on the scale by issuing the charge; the trial court did not elevate,
emphasize, or comment on a particular fact in evidence or lack thereof, nor did it
express an opinion on the credibility of witnesses or weight of the evidence. See
Brown, 443 S.C. at 198–99, 904 S.E.2d at 449; Jackson, 297 S.C. at 526, 377 S.E.2d
at 572.

B. Prejudice

Even if the credibility charge was erroneous, we hold it did not prejudice
Lawson. See Stukes, 416 S.C. at 498, 787 S.E.2d at 482 ("When reviewing a jury
charge for error . . . the charge must be prejudicial to the appellant to warrant a new
trial."). Lawson argues that "but for the improper charge, Lawson would have been
acquitted of the charges about Younger Brother just as he was acquitted of the
charges about Older Brother." We disagree.

When conducting a prejudice—or harmless error—analysis, this court must
consider "whether the erroneous charge contributed to the verdict rendered." State
v. Brown, 438 S.C. 146, 151, 881 S.E.2d 771, 773 (Ct. App. 2022) (quoting State v.
Kerr, 330 S.C. 132, 145, 498 S.E.2d 212, 218 (Ct. App. 1998)), aff'd in part, vacated
in part, 443 S.C. 196, 904 S.E.2d 448 (2024).

We hold the charge did not contribute to the verdict. Lawson argues the
credibility charge "inured only to the benefit of the children" because the brothers'
"innocent lapses were juxtaposed against the alleged child molester's intentional
deceptions." While this may describe the jury's conclusion, the charge in and of
itself does not necessitate this inference. The language of the charge applied to
witnesses generally, not exclusively to children or victims, and we may not invade
the jury's domain by ascribing the verdict to one way in which it may have weighed
the evidence. See State v. Herndon, 430 S.C. 367, 373 n.6, 845 S.E.2d 499, 502 n.6
(2020) ("As an appellate court, we must be careful not to weigh the
evidence. . . . Fundamental to a jury's role as fact-finder is making credibility
determinations, which lie in the sole province of the jury.").

Additionally, Lawson argues the credibility charge "improperly excused any
mistakes" made by Younger Brother because of his cognitive difficulties, which he
asserts explains why the jury only convicted Lawson of abusing Younger Brother.
We find it highly unlikely that the jury would single out the language in the charge
as a comment on Younger Brother's credibility. One could similarly reason the
charge led the jury to determine Older Brother's testimony included intentional
deceptions, which resulted in the acquittal of charges related to Older Brother.
Because the credibility charge itself did not encourage the jury to believe one witness
over others, we must not speculate as to why the jury did so.7 See State v. Reyes,
432 S.C. 394, 404, 853 S.E.2d 334, 339 (2020) ("Credibility is a determination for
the jury."); Tappeiner v. State, 416 S.C. 239, 250, 785 S.E.2d 471, 476 (2016)
(noting that, generally, the determination of a witness's credibility is "within the
exclusive province of the jury" (quoting State v. McKerley, 397 S.C. 461, 464, 725
S.E.2d 139, 141 (Ct. App. 2012))).

Thus, we hold the credibility charge did not contribute to the verdict and
therefore, did not prejudice Lawson. Stated another way, if the court did err by
including the challenged language in its credibility charge, the error was harmless.
See Brown, 438 S.C. at 151, S.E.2d at 773 ("In order to find the error harmless, we
must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not
contribute to the verdict." (quoting Kerr, 330 S.C. at 144–45, 498 S.E.2d at 218)).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's order is

AFFIRMED.

7
We can infer from the verdict that the jury believed Younger Brother and not Older
Brother, but we do not know why. To hold the charge was reversible error, we would
have to determine this was because of the charge, which would require credibility
determinations of our own.
KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.