The State of South Carolina v. Eric Emanuel English

Lexington, South Carolina criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.

The Victim in this case is English's biological daughter. She was six or seven

years old at the time she was sexually abused. On March 4, 2014, after Victim began

experiencing symptoms consistent with an STD, Victim told her mother English had

sexually abused her. Victim's mother took Victim to Palmetto Health Richland

where Victim tested positive for gonorrhea.



The next day, Jamie Stroman, Victim's mother's boyfriend, went to Lexington

Medical Center's Swansea urgent care branch and asked to be tested for STDs.

Stroman tested negative for gonorrhea. The day after that, English went to

Lexington Medical Center's Lexington urgent care branch and requested an STD

test. Like Victim, English tested positive for gonorrhea. There is no evidence

personnel at either testing facility were aware of allegations of sexual abuse at the

times Stroman's and English's samples were taken or at the times the test reports

were prepared.



We address the court of appeals' holding that English's and Stroman's

test reports were admissible as business records under Rule 803(6), SCRE. English,

436 S.C. at 346-48, 872 S.E.2d at 195-96. At trial, English lodged only two

objections to the admission of his and Stroman's test reports. His first objection was

based on the now-abrogated James rule. English's second objection was hearsay.

The trial court admitted the test report under Rule 803(6). However, English never

argued the particulars of Rule 803(6) were not satisfied. This issue was, therefore,

unpreserved, and the court of appeals erred in addressing it. S.C. Dep't of Transp. v.

First Carolina Corp. of S.C., 372 S.C. 295, 301-02, 641 S.E.2d 903, 907 (2007).

Accordingly, we vacate the portion of the court of appeals' opinion holding English's

and Stroman's test report was admissible under Rule 803(6), SCRE. See State v.

Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 694 (2003) ("An issue that was not

preserved for review should not be addressed by the Court of Appeals, and the court's

opinion should be vacated to the extent it addressed an issue that was not

preserved."). Our ruling on this point may seem overly particular; however, one of

the foundations for the admissibility of business records under Rule 803(6) is that

the person testifying about the reports—here, Dr. Frierson and Nurse Levi—must be

a "custodian" of the records or "other qualified person." The record does not reflect

whether either witness was a custodian or other qualified person.

Defendant was found guilty.



Affirmed as modified in part and vacated in part.