From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Osborne

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Feb 9, 1987
353 S.E.2d 276 (S.C. 1987)

Opinion

22668

Submitted January 5, 1987.

Decided February 9, 1987.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock and Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Dudley Saleeby, Jr., Florence, for petitioner. Deputy Chief Atty. Elizabeth C. Fullwood, Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, and John E. Cuttino of Bridges Orr, Florence, for respondent Osborne. Asst. Appellate Defender Daniel T. Stacey, Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for respondent Poston.


Submitted Jan. 5, 1987.

Decided Feb. 9, 1987.


This case is before the Court on petition for a writ of certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Appeals in State v. Osborne, 289 S.C. 142, 345 S.E.2d 256 (Ct.App. 1986). We grant certiorari, dispense with further briefing and affirm the opinion of the Court of Appeals as modified.

Respondents were convicted of conspiracy, armed robbery, and two counts of kidnapping and murder. The Court of Appeals held that the State's nondisclosure of two tape recordings of statements made by a key State's witness deprived respondents of a fair trial and reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The Court of Appeals determined that, in reviewing the materiality of nondisclosed evidence, it reviews the entire record as a thirteenth juror. This standard of review is erroneous.

Although in determining the materiality of nondisclosed evidence, an appellate court must consider that evidence in the context of the entire record, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), the court is not to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Goodson, 276 S.C. 243, 277 S.E.2d 602 (1981). Instead, the appellate court's function is to determine whether the appellant's right to a fair trial has been impaired. State v. Goodson, supra.

After applying the proper standard of review, we have determined that the nondisclosure of the tapes undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial. Therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the convictions and remanding the case for a new trial is affirmed.

Affirmed as modified.


Summaries of

State v. Osborne

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Feb 9, 1987
353 S.E.2d 276 (S.C. 1987)
Case details for

State v. Osborne

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Petitioner v. Thurman C. OSBORNE and Billy Ray Poston…

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Feb 9, 1987

Citations

353 S.E.2d 276 (S.C. 1987)
353 S.E.2d 276

Citing Cases

State v. Taylor

The court's function is to determine whether the appellant's right to a fair trial has been impaired. State…

State v. Proctor

The court's function is to determine whether the appellant's right to a fair trial has been impaired. State…