State v. Quattlebaum

State v. Quattlebaum
State v. Quattlebaum
Court	South Carolina Supreme Court
Full case name	The State of South Carolina, Respondent, v. Robert Joseph Quattlebaum, Appellant.
Decided	January 24, 2000
Citation	527 S.E.2d 105; 338 S.C. 441
Court membership
Judges sitting	Jean H. Toal, James E. Moore, John H. Waller, E. C. Burnett III, William T. Howell
Case opinions
Decision by	Burnett
Concurrence	Toal, Moore, Waller, Howell
Keywords
	Admissible evidence; Witnesses;

State v Quattlebaum (338 S.C. 441, 527 S.E.2d 105) is a 2000 decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court. The case is notable for having established the precedent that a defendant may, with restrictions, call the prosecuting attorney as a witness.^[1]

Particulars

James was arrested for a variety of charges including capital murder and was sentenced to death at trial. During pretrial investigations, the defendant was questioned and polygraphed in an interview room that was monitored and videotaped. Subsequent to his interview, the defendant was allowed to confer with counsel in the same interview room, with detectives and prosecutors listening in a remote location.

The appeal focused on whether the prosecutor, having heard privileged communication, should have been allowed to continue involvement in prosecution of the case and whether the defendant, having been made aware of the breach of privilege, should have been allowed to impeach the prosecution based on said breach.

Findings

The court found:

Because a deputy solicitor of the 11th circuit solicitor's office eavesdropped on a privileged conversation between appellant and his attorney, we reverse appellant's conviction...^[2]

Notes

^ Filling vacancy

References

^ State v Inman (Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina 21 September 2011) ("In Quattlebaum, this Court emphasized that "litigants, and especially defendants in criminal cases, should not be hampered in their choice of those by whom they choose to prove their cases.""), Text.
^ State v Quattlebaum (Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina 4 January 2000), Text.

[1] Filling vacancy

[2] State v Inman (Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina 21 September 2011) ("In Quattlebaum, this Court emphasized that "litigants, and especially defendants in criminal cases, should not be hampered in their choice of those by whom they choose to prove their cases.""), Text.

[3] State v Quattlebaum (Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina 4 January 2000), Text.

[a]

[1]

[2]