State v. Isaiah D. Butler

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.

Isaiah Deshaun Butler, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001272

Appeal From Lexington County
Walton J. McLeod, IV, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-386
Submitted November 1, 2023 – Filed December 6, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia, and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Isaiah Deshaun Butler appeals his convictions for attempted
murder and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature (ABHAN), and
concurrent sentences of twenty-eight years' imprisonment and twenty years'
imprisonment, respectively. On appeal, Butler argues the trial court erred by
admitting evidence of his prior conviction for possession of a stolen vehicle. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

We hold the trial court likely abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of
Butler's prior conviction; however, any error in doing so was harmless because the
State conclusively proved Butler's guilt by competent evidence "such that no other
rational conclusion [could] be reached." State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d.
581, 584 (1989); see also State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 170, 181, 638 S.E.2d 57, 63
(2006) ("[W]hether an error is harmless depends on the particular circumstances of
the case."); id. at 181-82, 638 S.E.2d at 63 ("Error is only harmless 'when it could
not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.'"); State v. Wallace, 440 S.C.
537, 541, 892 S.E.2d 310, 312 (2023) ("We review a trial court's ruling on the
admission or exclusion of evidence—when the ruling is based on the South
Carolina Rules of Evidence—under an abuse of discretion standard."); Rule
609(a)(1), SCRE ("[E]vidence that a witness . . . has been convicted of a crime
shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or
imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was
convicted, and . . . shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value
of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect . . . ."); 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 . . . ."); State v. Robinson, 426 S.C. 579, 599, 828
S.E.2d 203, 213 (2019) ("[P]rior convictions for robbery, burglary, theft, and drug
possession are not crimes of dishonesty or false statement, which would result in
automatic admissibility under Rule 609(a)(2) . . . ."). Multiple witnesses testified
Butler threatened to shoot them on the day of the shooting and that he was driving
the vehicle used in the shooting. The State presented police testimony regarding
cellphone data which showed (1) Butler sent and received several text messages
advising him to "lay low" in the days immediately following the shooting because
he "did some S-H-I-T" and (2) Butler was in the area during the time of the
shooting, contradicting his alibi. Additionally, Butler was identified as the shooter
both on a 911 call and later in a photographic lineup. Butler's own testimony
harmed his credibility because his testimony was inconsistent with his initial police
statement. The testimony of his alibi witnesses was inconsistent and at odds with
the cell phone location evidence. Furthermore, Butler's prior conviction was only
briefly mentioned during his direct examination, and the only time a stolen vehicle
was mentioned in relation to the charged incident was in reference to the 911
dispatcher's initial relay of information to responding officers. See State v.
Johnson, 363 S.C. 53, 60, 609 S.E.2d 520, 524 (2005) (finding that the prejudicial
impact of erroneously admitted evidence of a prior conviction on an appellant's
credibility was minimal when "defense counsel strategically introduced Petitioner's
prior convictions on direct examination to lessen the impact they might have on
Petitioner's credibility" and the "prosecution placed no other emphasis on these
prior convictions."). Accordingly, the admission of Butler's prior conviction could
not have reasonably affected the outcome of the trial.

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and HEWITT and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

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