State v. Joseph R. Henry

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.

Joseph Randolph Henry, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001404

Appeal From Lexington County
Frank R. Addy, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-227
Submitted May 1, 2023 – Filed June 7, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Joseph Randolph Henry appeals his convictions for murder and
possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and his aggregate
sentence of forty years' imprisonment. On appeal, Henry argues the trial court
erred in refusing to allow him to impeach one of the State's witnesses with a
remote prior conviction for a crime of dishonesty. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court conducted an adequate on-the-record analysis when
determining whether to allow Henry to use the prior conviction for impeachment
because the court weighed the probative value of the conviction against its
prejudicial effect and discussed the specific facts and circumstances of the
conviction. See State v. Robinson, 426 S.C. 579, 591, 828 S.E.2d 203, 209 (2019)
("The admission of evidence concerning past convictions for impeachment
purposes remains within the trial [court's] discretion, provided the [trial court]
conducts the analysis mandated by the evidence rules and case law." (quoting State
v. Dunlap, 346 S.C. 312, 324, 550 S.E.2d 889, 896 (Ct. App. 2001) (alteration in
original))); State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 627, 525 S.E.2d 246, 248 (2000) (stating a
trial court should consider the following non-exhaustive list of factors when
determining whether to admit evidence of a prior conviction: (1) "[t]he
impeachment value of the prior crime," (2) "[t]he point in time of the conviction
and the witness's subsequent history," (3) "[t]he similarity between the past crime
and the charged crime," (4) "[t]he importance of the defendant's testimony," and
(5) "[t]he centrality of the credibility issue"). We also hold the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Henry to use the prior conviction for
impeachment because Henry failed to (1) illustrate how the facts and
circumstances warranted the introduction of the remote conviction; (2) show the
probative value of the conviction substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect of
its admission; and (3) provide sufficient advance written notice of his intent to use
the remote conviction. See Robinson, 426 S.C. at 591, 828 S.E.2d at 209 ("The
admission of evidence concerning past convictions for impeachment purposes
remains within the trial [court's] discretion, provided the [trial court] conducts the
analysis mandated by the evidence rules and case law." (quoting Dunlap, 346 S.C.
at 324, 550 S.E.2d at 896 (alteration in original))); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201,
208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the
conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an
error of law."); Rule 609(a)(2), SCRE ("For the purpose of attacking the credibility
of a witness, . . . evidence that any witness has been convicted of a crime shall be
admitted if it involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the
punishment."); Rule 609(b), SCRE ("Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not
admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed . . . unless the court
determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction
supported by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its
prejudicial effect."); Robinson, 426 S.C. at 595, 828 S.E.2d at 211 (holding the
proponent of evidence under Rule 609(b) has the burden of establishing its
admissibility and "if the conviction is a 'remote' conviction (even a conviction of a
crime involving dishonesty or false statement under Rule 609(a)(2)), the trial court
must balance the Colf factors and determine whether the probative value of the
conviction, supported by specific facts and circumstances, substantially outweighs
its prejudicial effect"); Rule 609(b), SCRE ("[E]vidence of a conviction more than
10 years old as calculated herein, is not admissible unless the proponent gives to
the adverse party sufficient advance written notice of intent to use such evidence to
provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to contest the use of such
evidence.").

AFFIRMED. 1

KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.