South Carolina Criminal Lawyer Blog

On April 26, 2001, authorities were called to the home of Amy Hughes and her boyfriend, Lucas Bailey. A child was found dead at the scene and had noticeable trauma to the abdomen. An autopsy was performed and the doctor concluded that the child had been severely beaten in the abdomen and head, ultimately causing his death. A grand jury indicted Bailey for homicide by child abuse. The indictment stated that Bailey had inflicted physical injuries on the child, resulting in his death. Amy Hughes, Bailey's girlfriend and the victim's mother, testified that Bailey had cared for the child preceding the victim's death. She testified that early one morning, she heard a loud noise when Bailey was with the child and the child began to cry. Bailey and Hughes cared for the child and gave him cold medication, but he remained ill. When Hughes was returning from the store on the day of the incident, she found emergency personnel at her home. Hughes told authorities that Bailey had struck her child and caused his death. Bailey denied hitting the child and the case proceeded to trial.

At the trial, the jury was confused as to whether a conviction for homicide by child abuse required direct evidence that Bailey abused the child or whether neglect was enough. The jury could find no evidence presented that Bailey in fact harmed or abused the child. However, they did find the both Hughes and Bailey neglected the child by failing to provide adequate medical care. The judge explained that as long as the act or omission by Bailey was the proximate cause of the child's death, then that was enough to establish a conviction based on child abuse. The jury returned with a guilty verdict and Bailey was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.

Bailey appealed his conviction, but the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that there was substantial circumstantial evidence that supported a finding that Bailey abused the child. Bailey then filed a post-conviction relief (PCR) application and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to certain jury instructions. A defendant has the right to an effective assistance of counsel based on the Sixth Amendment. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the PCR applicant must prove (1) counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. The PCR judge found that Bailey had not been prejudiced. Bailey appealed that finding to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. The Supreme Court found that since the indictment only alleged that Bailey physically abused the child, then that was all Bailey was required to defend against. When the judge informed the jury that it could find a conviction based on neglect, he erred because the indictment did not make any allegations that Bailey omitted performing an act. As such, Bailey's counsel was ineffective when she failed to object to the judge's erroneous instructions. Bailey was prejudiced by counsel's performance because it created a separate charge to which Bailey had to defend that was not mentioned within the indictment. The Court remanded for a new trial.