Presented by (2).png

Exceptions to Lyle/404

· State v. Beck, 342 S.C. 129 (2000) A witness was allowed to testify to a similar robbery by defendant under the identity exception to Lyle. In both cases, the person committed similar offenses within a short period of time, wore similar boots, and had the same weapon.


·State v. Dickerson, 341 S.C. 391 (2000) The admission of defendant’s drug use must have some relevant connection to the charged crime. Drug use in this case could have shown that it was the defendant who killed the victim, which would go to identity. The drug use was shown by clear and convincing evidence because the defendant freely admitted to using it during the time of the murder.


· State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27 (1999) Trial court properly admitted defendant’s prior domestic violence conviction under SCRE 404(b) to show state of mind, lack of accident, and a connection between the abusive relationship and the murder.


· State v. Southernland, 316 S.C. 377 (1994) Trial court properly admitted evidence that defendant had stolen a shotgun two weeks prior to him using that shotgun to murder victim. The prior bad act evidence went to identity and a common scheme.


· State v. Gore, 299 S.C. 368 (1989) The State properly admitted evidence of defendant’s prior drug transactions to show his intent with the cocaine he possessed. “The State argues this testimony was admissible to establish the element of intent. We agree. The evidence that appellant sold cocaine from the trailer on two occasions only one month earlier tends to establish his intent regarding the cocaine in his possession at the time in question.”


· State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117 (Ct. App. 2004) Defendant assaulted victim in October, and he subsequently spent 45 days in jail after that assault. Shortly after being released from jail, defendant committed Assault and Battery With Intent to Kill on the same victim. The trial court properly allowed in the October assault and his time in jail in order to show motive and intent. The state of mind of the defendant was relevant because the State had to prove malice.


· State v. Martucci, 380 S.C. 232 (2008) Prior child abuse was properly admitted against defendant who was charged with homicide by child abuse because it showed intent (material to state of mind of defendant), absence of mistake or accident (proof that the fatal injury was not an accident), identity (codefendants pointed the finger at each other), and common scheme or plan (evidence of a pattern in child abuse cases is probative).