Rule 1103. Title and Effective Date
(a) Title. These rules shall be entitled South Carolina Rules of Evidence, and may be cited by rule number and the letters SCRE, i.e., Rule ___, SCRE.
(b) Effective Date. These rules shall become effective September 3, 1995.
Note:
The language of subsection (a) is based on Rule 85 (a), SCRCP. The federal rules do not contain a counterpart to subsection (b).
Annotations Rule 1103
1103(b)
Generally
See Rule 1103(b), SCRE ("These rules shall become effective September 3, 1995.") Deep Keel, LLC v. Atl. Private Equity Grp., LLC, 413 S.C. 58, 67, 773 S.E.2d 607, 611 n. 5 (Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Joseph, 328 S.C. 352, 491 S.E.2d 275, 279 n.2 (Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Gulledge, 321 S.C. 399, 404, 468 S.E.2d 665, 668 (Ct. App. 1996) affirmed as modified in 326 S.C. 220, 492 S.E.2d 816, 819 (Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Peay, 321 S.C. 405, 410, 468 S.E.2d 669, 672 n.1 (Ct. App. 1996).
Chain of Custody
In criminal matters "[t]he party offering evidence must trace possession of the substance and what was done with it from the time it was taken until final analysis. 'Proof of chain of custody need not negate all possibility of tampering but must establish a complete chain of evidence, as far as practicable.' The admission of evidence establishing the chain of custody is within the trial judge's discretion." State v. Smith, 321 S.C. 13, 467 S.E.2d 110, 113 (Ct. App. 1996) reversed 321 S.C. 13, 467 S.E.2d 110 (1997).
Corroborative
"Corroborative testimony is testimony which tends to strengthen, confirm, or make more certain the testimony of another witness. Evidence is admissible to corroborate the testimony of a previous witness, and whether it in fact corroborates the witness' testimony is a question for the jury." State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 210, 631 S.E.2d 262, 266 (2006).
Flight
Our supreme court has identified the "critical factor to the admissibility of evidence of flight" as "whether the totality of the evidence creates an inference that the defendant had knowledge that he was being sought by the authorities ... [and his] actions were motivated as a result of his belief that police officers were aware of his wrongdoing and were seeking him for that purpose." State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 209, 631 S.E.2d 262, 266 (2006). In addition, this court has held evidence of "unexplained" flight
is admissible as indicating consciousness of guilt, for it is not to be supposed that one who is innocent and conscious of that fact would flee. However, we have further noted that [t]he critical factor to the admissibility of evidence of flight is whether the totality of the evidence creates an inference that the defendant had knowledge that he was being sought by the authorities. Flight evidence is relevant when there is a nexus between the flight and the offense charged. It is sufficient that circumstances justify an inference that the accused's actions were motivated as a result of his belief that police officers were aware of his wrongdoing and were seeking him for that purpose. Where the circumstances fail to show the necessary nexus between a defendant's flight and the current offense for which...
