Background
Matthew Hogan appealed convictions for twelve counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of incest. He received an aggregate thirty-five-year sentence.
The trial judge instructed jurors on credibility and stated that a simple mistake does not mean a witness was not telling the truth as the witness remembered it. Hogan argued this wording improperly excused inconsistencies and violated article V, section 21 of the South Carolina Constitution, which bars judges from charging juries about factual matters.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. Reviewing the charge as a whole and in light of the trial evidence, it held that the instruction applied equally to every witness. It did not identify any particular testimony, endorse a witness’s veracity, or tell jurors what weight to give an inconsistency. The trial court therefore remained within its discretion.
The panel distinguished an instruction condemned in an earlier sexual-conduct case because that charge singled out the victim’s testimony and said corroboration was unnecessary. By contrast, the neutral mistake language here expressed a general credibility principle. Jurors retained responsibility for deciding whether a discrepancy was innocent, deliberate, or important.
Key Takeaways
- South Carolina judges may give neutral credibility instructions that apply to all witnesses.
- A charge becomes constitutionally problematic when it signals an opinion about a particular witness or item of evidence.
- Appellate courts review the jury charge as a whole, not one sentence in isolation.
- Counsel challenging a charge should explain how its wording altered the jury’s evaluation of contested testimony.
Why It Matters
The decision helps South Carolina trial lawyers separate permissible credibility guidance from an unconstitutional comment on the facts. Proposed instructions should use evenhanded language and avoid tying general principles to the complainant, defendant, or another identifiable witness.
For preservation and appellate review, counsel should place the full charge in context and identify the factual dispute allegedly tilted by the instruction. A general assertion that the words favored credibility will be less persuasive when jurors were expressly left free to assess every witness under the same standard.