In this juvenile prosecution for Criminal Sexual Conduct, a four- or five-year-old boy testified that his 12- or 13-year-old uncle had anally raped him. During trial the nephew’s therapist produced records showing that the boy had reported hearing voices for some time, until about a month before trial. According to the nephew, the voices told him to say mean things to his friends and to hurt them.

Upon reading the records, defense counsel renewed a motion for a psychological examination of the boy. The trial court denied the motion.

The court of appeals held this was an abuse of discretion and reversed the uncle’s conviction. The supreme court affirmed that decision, saying the case was one of first impression in South Carolina.

The supreme court noted a split of authority in other states. Some states prohibit trial judges from ordering such psychological examinations. They do so to protect the privacy of crime victims and to avoid discouraging crime victims from reporting. The court cited cases in California and North Carolina for this view.

Other states follow the position South Carolina adopted in this case. They grant trial judges discretion to order such exams when the defense shows a compelling need. The court cited cases in Alaska, Nevada, New Jersey, Tennessee, and West Virginia. (This is also the law in Washington State. State v. Demos, 94 Wn.2d 733, 619 P.2d 968 (1980).)