|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
South Carolina’s supreme court has reversed a lower court ruling that had granted post-conviction relief to a Chesterfield County man convicted of Homicide by Child Abuse (HCA) – ruling that while his trial attorney failed to preserve a key evidentiary objection, the error was not sufficient to warrant a new trial.
The unanimous ruling from the state’s highest court reinstated the life sentence imposed on Mitchell Rivers, who was convicted in 2011 following the death of his four-month-old adoptive son. The case centered on complex questions of legal strategy, trial preservation and the prejudicial impact of introducing unrelated injury evidence — a frequent flashpoint in South Carolina’s child abuse prosecutions.
***
Rivers’ case has spanned nearly two decades. The child’s death occurred in August 2005. Rivers wasn’t brought to trial until February 2011 — more than five years later — with prosecutors in the S.C. fourth circuit bringing the charges and circuit court judge Paul M. Burch presiding over the case.
During the trial, prosecutors introduced graphic evidence of the infant’s healing rib fractures and bruises discovered during the autopsy – even though none of those injuries were conclusively linked to the cause of death (or to Rivers himself).
***
RELATED | S.C. SUPREME COURT: CATHOLIC CHURCH COULD BE LIABLE FOR MORE SEX ABUSE CLAIMS
***
While Rivers’ defense attorney objected to the admissibility of those injuries prior to the trial, he failed to raise the objection again as the evidence came in — a procedural oversight which left the issue unpreserved for appeal. In 2015, the S.C. court of appeals affirmed Rivers’ conviction on that basis.
Rivers filed for post-conviction relief (PCR) just two weeks later. A hearing was held in 2017 before judge Roger Henderson. Though the court found Rivers’ trial counsel had performed deficiently, it ruled the error did not prejudice the outcome — a decision which was later reversed by the court of appeals in an unpublished opinion (.pdf) in 2023.
Now, the high court has reversed that ruling – and reinstated the conviction.
***
THE CENTRAL LEGAL DISPUTE: PRIOR INJURIES, PRESENT IMPACT
At the heart of the case is whether the jury should have heard about the infant’s collateral injuries — bruises and fractures that were not the cause of death but were consistent with prior physical abuse. Prosecutors used the injuries to support a theory of Battered Child Syndrome and to rebut Rivers’ defense that the child’s death was accidental.
Critically, multiple experts testified at trial that the injuries could not be explained by normal activity for an infant. However, they admitted under cross-examination that there was no direct evidence linking Rivers to the older injuries.
Rivers’ counsel argued that introducing those injuries — without connecting them to the defendant — painted him as an abuser and prejudiced the jury. Even Rivers’ own trial attorney later testified at the post-conviction relief hearing that the case still haunted him and was one of the reasons he left public defense.
“It turned the case into one where, instead of a one-time tragedy, it showed a pattern of abuse,” he testified. “That was devastating.”
***
SUPREME COURT: NO PREJUDICE
Despite the dramatic testimony and the breakdown in trial preservation, the supreme court found that the jury would likely have convicted Rivers even without the prior injury evidence. Writing for the court, justice Leticia Verdin concluded that Rivers’ own conduct — by his own account — established extreme indifference to human life, the standard required for homicide by child abuse
Rivers admitted he had previously performed CPR on the child, who had a known history of severe breathing issues, yet failed to seek medical attention or alert anyone after the child began breathing again. Instead, he placed the baby in a playpen and went outside to do yard work.
“Even assuming the jury accepted Rivers’ version of events, his actions demonstrated a conscious disregard for the risk of death,” Verdin wrote.
Because there was no reasonable probability the jury’s verdict would have changed without the disputed evidence, the court ruled Rivers failed to show prejudice — and thus did not meet the legal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel.
The ruling also touched on the admissibility of Battered Child Syndrome evidence, noting it is not automatically allowed. Although the court declined to rule on its admissibility here, it warned that such evidence must meet strict relevance and prejudice tests under Rules 401, 403, and 404(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence.
The court noted that Rivers’ jury received no limiting instruction regarding how to interpret the prior injury evidence — something trial counsel failed to request. Despite this, the Court was not persuaded the error altered the outcome.
***
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
With the supreme court’s decision, Rivers’ life sentence is reinstated, closing the door on nearly a decade of litigation – unless he decides to seek relief in federal court. The case also reinforces the procedural rigor required in South Carolina criminal trials — particularly the need to renew objections — and signals that even serious attorney mistakes won’t automatically justify a new trial if the evidence of guilt is deemed overwhelming.
The ruling may also fuel continued debate about the use of prior injury evidence in child abuse prosecutions — especially in cases where that evidence is not directly tied to the defendant.
Got a tip on judicial misconduct, prosecutorial overreach or legal injustice in South Carolina? Email us at tips@fitsnews.com.
***
THE RULING…
(S.C. Supreme Court)
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Jenn Wood is FITSNews’ incomparable research director. She’s also the producer of the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts and leading expert on all things Murdaugh/ South Carolina justice. A former private investigator with a criminal justice degree, evildoers beware, Jenn Wood is far from your average journalist! A deep dive researcher with a passion for truth and a heart for victims, this mom of two is pretty much a superhero in FITSNews country. Did we mention she’s married to a rocket scientist? (Lucky guy!) Got a story idea or a tip for Jenn? Email her at jenn@fitsnews.com.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
