State v. Ariel S. Robinson

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.

Ariel S. Robinson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000716

Appeal From Greenville County
Letitia H. Verdin, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-171
Submitted April 8, 2025 – Filed May 28, 2025

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III, of
Greenville, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the trial court's denial of Appellant Ariel
Robinson's motion to suppress graphic photographs of the injuries to a
three-year-old child. Robinson argues the photographs were highly inflammatory
and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice. We disagree.

FACTS
On January 14, 2021, emergency personnel responded to Robinson's home for a
possible drowning involving her three-year-old foster daughter (Victim).
Robinson lived in the home with her husband Austin (Husband), their two
biological children, Victim, and two additional foster children ages seven and five,
Victim's brothers. When emergency personnel arrived, only Robinson, Husband,
and Victim were home. Robinson was attempting to perform CPR, and Victim
was unresponsive and cold to the touch. Firefighters took over CPR and removed
Victim's clothing to treat her. Firefighters noticed bruising on Victim's lower
abdomen and extensive bruising on her legs. Robinson claimed that she
accidentally caused the bruises to Victim's abdomen in her attempts to perform
CPR on the child. Robinson further claimed that Victim's seven-year-old brother
(J.E.) inflicted the bruises on Victim's legs. She told first responders that J.E. had
anger issues and would often hit Victim. Victim was rushed to the hospital and
transferred to the ICU, but unfortunately succumbed to her injuries and died that
evening.
A Greenville County grand jury indicted Robinson and Husband for homicide by
child abuse. 1 At a pretrial hearing, Robinson moved to exclude eight photographs
of Victim's injuries, including one autopsy photo, arguing they did not prove any
substantial material fact that could not be shown through alternate evidence, and
therefore, created an undue likelihood of a verdict based on emotion. Robinson
submitted diagrams of Victim's injuries prepared by Dr. Michael Ward, who
performed Victim's autopsy, as an alternative to the photographs.
The trial court excluded two of the photographs under Rule 403 of the South
Carolina Rules of Evidence, and found the remaining photographs were probative
of the severity of Victim's injuries, the absence of mistake, the "extreme
indifference to human life" element of the offense, and whether the injuries could
have been inflicted by another child.

1
Husband pled guilty to aiding and abetting homicide by child abuse in the weeks
prior to Robinson's trial. At the time of trial, he was awaiting sentencing.
At trial, the State presented evidence that first responders arrived at the scene and
administered CPR to Victim, who was already in cardiac arrest, unresponsive, and
cold to the touch. The State admitted body camera footage of the scene, which
captured Robinson's statements to first responders. Firefighters testified they
observed severe bruising to Victim's abdomen when they removed her shirt. When
asked about the bruising, Robinson told firefighters the bruising was caused by her
attempts to administer CPR and that she "must have been doing it wrong." EMS
workers noticed extensive bruising all over Victim's legs, which they described as
completely purple from the waist down. Robinson stated that the leg bruises were
caused by J.E. She claimed J.E. often hit Victim and was in therapy for anger
issues.

Officer Karlee Patrikis took Robinson's statement at the scene. Robinson told her
that Victim became cold after eating a popsicle, so she sat with her under a heated
blanket watching TV. Victim ate some snacks and drank three to five cups of
water. Robinson stated that Victim complained of a stomach ache and then began
choking on the water. Robinson attempted the Heimlich maneuver, but Victim
went limp and lost consciousness. Husband then called 911 and Robinson
followed the operator's instructions to perform CPR compressions until EMS
arrived.
Husband testified for the State. Although he corroborated Robinson's story on the
night of Victim's death, he later made statements to law enforcement implicating
Robinson. Husband testified J.E. did not cause the injuries to Victim. He testified
Robinson was the only one who disciplined Victim, and she often became angry if
Victim took too long to eat or use the bathroom. Robinson would set a timer for
Victim and then spank her with a hand, belt, or paddle if she did not finish eating
or using the restroom before the timer went off. Husband testified that he and
Robinson were home with Victim on the day of the incident, while the older
children were at school. Husband spent much of the day outside doing chores, but
testified that over a period of approximately one hour he heard multiple instances
of Robinson "fussing" at Victim for eating slowly and Victim crying. Husband
knew from her crying that Victim was being hit.
Husband testified he did not see the bruising on Victim until the afternoon. He
explained he saw Robinson holding a belt and standing over Victim. Husband
testified he saw the bruising on Victim and told Robinson she had "gone too far
this time." Husband left the home to purchase Tylenol for Victim, and only called
911 when Victim finally lost consciousness. Husband testified Victim had been
naked, but Robinson put clothes on her to cover the bruising before first responders
arrived. Husband asserted he never hurt Victim and did not inflict her injuries, and
that he eventually gave a revised statement to police to "say [his] piece about stuff
and try to get some kind of leniency."

Dr. Jaqueline Granger, Victim's treating physician in the ER, testified Victim was
in cardiac arrest when she arrived in the ER. She immediately noticed Victim had
"extensive bruising" over her body. She testified linear and loop bruising patterns
on Victim's legs and abdomen indicated she was hit with an object, and the bruises
indicated deep tissue bleeding. She stated it would have been "difficult, if not
impossible" for a seven-year-old to cause the bruising, and she did not believe "a
seven-year-old of [J.E.'s] size especially, would have been able to hold down a
three-year-old long enough to cause that extent of injury." Dr. Granger further
testified she had never seen this type of bruising occur after CPR or the Heimlich
maneuver, and she believed the injuries resulted from several blows sustained
around the same time. She added that after sustaining the blows, "[Victim] would
have been in excruciating pain, and then slowly would have become altered and
then unconscious."
Dr. Ward, who performed Victim's autopsy, also testified for the State. He opined
that Victim's "virtually innumerable" bruises were caused by multiple blunt-force
injuries. Dr. Ward also stated the bruising he observed was not consistent with
improper CPR, or administration of the Heimlich maneuver. Dr. Ward opined that
the pattern bruising indicated Victim was struck with a foreign object, which he
agreed could have been a belt. Focusing on Victim's leg injuries, he explained they
were not traditional bruises; rather, these were "severe deep injur[ies]" that tore
through skin, fatty tissue, a tissue plane, and underlying muscle, and bled
throughout the tissue and into the muscle.
Over objection, the State published State's Exhibit 42, 2 an autopsy photograph that
Dr. Ward used during his testimony to identify features of his autopsy findings,
including the presence of "avulsion pockets." He explained:

The classic description of an avulsion pocket is someone
who's been hit by a car. So the back of their legs, it,
basically, emulsifies or liquifies the fat and tears that
tissue plane. So this, certainly isn't the force of a car, but

2
State's Exhibit 42 depicts the back side of Victim's body from the buttocks to her
calves. Her thighs are incised from just below the buttocks to the top of her knees,
with the outer layers of skin pulled back to reveal the entire inner thigh
composition permeated with blood.
I'm just saying it is a very strong force . . . multiple
strong blows that would disrupt that tissue plane allowing
blood to enter into those places.
Dr. Ward found Victim's cause of death was multiple blunt-force trauma injuries,
explaining she bled to death into her abdomen and legs. He further opined a
seven-year-old such as J.E. would lack the strength and coordination to deliver
blows of that force.

Robinson testified in her own defense. She denied hitting Victim or causing
Victim's bruises. Robinson testified consistently with the statements she
previously made to law enforcement. However, she also testified that when
firefighters began CPR on Victim, she realized she had not been administering it
properly. She explained she left the room as first responders were removing
Victim's shirt, and only saw Victim's abdominal bruises later in photographs
provided during discovery. She testified she did not realize the severity of the
bruises when she told first responders that she had inflicted the abdominal bruises
during CPR. Robinson similarly claimed she did not see Victim's leg bruises at the
scene. She testified she told EMS that J.E. must have caused the bruises because
she knew he had anger issues and had bruised Victim in the past. Once she saw
the photographs of Victim's bruises in the State's discovery, she testified she
realized J.E. was not capable of causing the bruises. Robinson conceded in her
testimony that it would not have been possible for J.E. to have inflicted Victim's
severe injuries, and further conceded the abdominal bruises could have not been
caused by her attempts at CPR. On cross examination, Robinson admitted for the
first time that the injuries had to have been caused by either her or Husband.
The jury convicted Robinson as indicted, and the trial court sentenced her to life
imprisonment. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only." State v.
Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006). "The trial judge has
considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision
should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion." State v. Clasby,
385 S.C. 148, 154, 682 S.E.2d 892, 895 (2009). To warrant reversal based on the
admission of evidence, the complaining party "must prove both the error of the
ruling and the resulting prejudice." Vaught v. A.O. Hardee & Sons, Inc., 366 S.C.
475, 480, 623 S.E.2d 373, 375 (2005).
LAW/ANALYSIS

Robinson argues the trial court erred in admitting the photographs of Victim's
injuries. We disagree.

"'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence." Rule 401, SCRE. "Although
relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence." Rule 403, SCRE. "A trial court has
particularly wide discretion in ruling on Rule 403 objections." State v. Lee, 399
S.C. 521, 527, 732 S.E.2d 225, 228 (Ct. App. 2012).
"The relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of photographs as evidence are
matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court." State v. Holder, 382 S.C.
278, 290, 676 S.E.2d 690, 697 (2009) (quoting State v. Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 508,
466 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1996)). "If the offered photograph serves to corroborate
testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit it." Id. (quoting Nance, 320
S.C. at 508, 466 S.E.2d at 353). However, "[p]hotographs calculated to arouse the
sympathy or prejudice of the jury should be excluded if they are irrelevant or not
necessary to substantiate material facts or conditions." State v. Brazell, 325 S.C.
65, 78, 480 S.E.2d 64, 72 (1997). To be classified as unfairly prejudicial,
photographs must have a "tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis,
commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." State v. Franklin, 318 S.C.
47, 55, 456 S.E.2d 357, 361 (1995) (quoting State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 382,
401 S.E.2d 146, 149 (1991)). "When juxtaposing the prejudicial effect against the
probative value, the determination must be based on the entire record and will turn
on the facts of each case." State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 338, 665 S.E.2d 201, 206
(Ct. App. 2008).
In recent years, our supreme court has cautioned prosecutors against the
unnecessary admission of gruesome photographs in the guilt phase of a trial where
the facts they are intending to prove have been fully established by competent
testimony. See State v. Heyward, 441 S.C. 484, 501-02, 895 S.E.2d 658, 667
(2023). An appellate court's decision to affirm or reverse the admission of graphic
photographs often turns on whether the photographs are probative of a legitimate
and disputed issue in the case. In State v. Nelson, 440 S.C. 413, 426, 891 S.E.2d
508, 514 (2023), our supreme court concluded the "excessively gruesome" autopsy
photos in that case should have been excluded. There was no question in Nelson as
to the cause of death—the victim was stabbed some 113 times. Id. at 425, 891
S.E.2d at 514. In defense counsel's opening statement to the jury, he admitted the
truth of almost every potential disputed fact. Id. at 417, 891 S.E.2d at 510. The
only issue left for the jury was who killed the victim, and the autopsy photographs
provided no insight into the identity of the killer. Id.

Our appellate courts have repeatedly upheld the introduction of graphic
photographs and autopsy photographs when their probative value was established
and the trial judge clearly balanced the inherent danger of unfair prejudice against
their high probative value. In State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 290, 676 S.E.2d 690,
697 (2009), our supreme court upheld the admission of autopsy photographs of a
child’s injuries where the mother was charged with homicide by child abuse. In
Holder, the child's mother initially claimed the child had been injured in an ATV
accident, then gave police a second statement admitting her boyfriend had
repeatedly abused her son. Id. at 282, 676 S.E.2d at 693. She testified at trial that
she was unaware of any marks on her son prior to his death and thought he was
suffering from simple food poisoning. Id. at 291, 676 S.E.2d at 697. At trial, the
pathologist testified that the child's injuries were not caused by an accident, but by
blunt-force trauma to the abdomen. Id. at 282, 676 S.E.2d at 692-93. The child
had numerous bruises all over his body in various stages of healing. Id. at 282-83,
676 S.E.2d at 692-93. The pathologist further testified that he was not sure the
jury could understand the injuries without the photographs. Id. at 290, 676 S.E.2d
at 697.
The supreme court affirmed the admission of the photographs, finding they
"clearly demonstrate the extent and nature of the injuries in a way that would not
be as easily understood based on the testimony alone." Id.; see also State v.
Benton, 443 S.C. 1, 5, 8-9, 901 S.E.2d 701, 703, 705 (2024) (upholding the
admission of graphic crime scene photos where they "drew probative force from
their unique power to make Benton's accomplices' testimony more believable,"
providing "important context to the testimony and other evidence about who did
what at the scene"); Heyward, 441 S.C. at 503, 895 S.E.2d at 668 (upholding the
admission of autopsy photographs corroborating manner of death where the
defendant disputed the expert opinion from the State); State v. Gray, 408 S.C. 601,
613-14, 759 S.E.2d 160, 167 (Ct. App. 2014) (upholding the admission of autopsy
photos to corroborate State's expert witness and to refute the testimony of defense's
expert).

In this case, we hold that the photographs were necessary to refute Robinson's
claims that Victim's injuries were caused by Robinson's CPR attempts and by J.E.'s
abuse. Robinson consistently told this story at the scene to first responders. Only
after the State rested its case and Robinson took the stand did she admit for the first
time that Victim's injuries could not have been caused by a seven-year-old child.
Of course, the State could not have known whether Robinson would testify at trial
or what the substance of her testimony would be. The State further had no way to
anticipate that Robinson would concede on cross-examination that Victim's injuries
had to have been caused by either her or Husband. The State had the burden of
proving every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and also had to
anticipate any possible defenses Robinson might raise. Given Robinson's
consistent statements blaming a seven-year-old child for the injuries, the
photographs of the extent and severity of the injuries were crucial to the State's
case.
We also find the photographs were probative of the cause of death as well as the
elements of the offense of homicide by child abuse. "A person is guilty of
homicide by child abuse if the person … causes the death of a child under the age
of eleven while committing child abuse or neglect, and the death occurs under
circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to human life …" S.C. Code
Ann. § 16-3-85(A)(1) (2015). "Extreme indifference" under this statute has been
defined as a "mental state akin to intent characterized by a deliberate act
culminating in death." Holder, 382 S.C. at 289, 676 S.E.2d at 696 (quoting
McKnight v. State, 378 S.C. 33, 48, 661 S.E.2d 354, 361 (2008)). The cause of
death in this case was somewhat unique in that the vast majority of Victim's
bruises were on the legs and the back of the legs. Dr. Ward testified that Victim
died from blood loss into the tissues of her abdomen and legs caused by the force
of the blows. The autopsy photograph of the deep-tissue bleeding helped illustrate
to the jury how Victim could have bled to death from a spanking that did not break
the skin. We believe that the autopsy photos showing the bleeding deep in the
tissues of Victim's legs were probative as to the cause of death and probative as to
whether Robinson spanked the child in a manner "manifesting an extreme
indifference to human life."

For the above reasons, we affirm.

THOMAS, HEWITT, and CURTIS, JJ., concur.