text rule in South Carolina

2017The court cautioned that “[i]f the reservation in the text of the rule is to have any effect, it must be understood to narrowly limit those admissible state ments to declarations of condition—‘I’m scared’—and not belief—Tm scared because [someone] threatened me.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Cohen, 631 F.2d 1223, 1225 (5th Cir. 1980)).

2017“The court cautioned that ‘[i]f the reservation in the text of the rule is to have any effect, it must be understood to narrowly limit those admissible statements to declarations of condition—“I’m scared”—and not belief— “I’m scared because [someone] threatened me.” ’ ” Id. at 155-56 , 796 S.E.2d at 178 (quoting Garcia, 334 S.C. at 76 , 512 S.E.2d at 509 ).

2017The court cautioned that “[i]f the reservation in the text of the rule is to have any effect, it must be understood to narrowly limit those admissible state ments to declarations of condition—‘I’m scared’—and not belief—Tm scared because [someone] threatened me.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Cohen, 631 F.2d 1223, 1225 (5th Cir. 1980)).

2006United States v. Cohen, 631 F.2d 1223, 1225 (5th Cir.1980) (“But the state-of-mind exception does not permit the witness to relate any of the declarant’s statements as to why he held the particular state of mind, or what he might have believed that would have induced the state of mind.) If the reservation in the text of the rule is to have any effect, it must be understood to narrowly limit those admissible statements to declarations of condition — ‘I’m scared’ — and not belief — ‘I’m scared because [someone] threatened me.’ ” 334 S.C. at 76 , 512 S.E.2d at 508 (emphasis supplied).

1992See, e.g., Business Guides v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 , 111 S.Ct. 922 , 112 L.Ed. (2d) 1140 (1991) (clear and unambiguous text in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is given its plain meaning). *535 In our view, the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 71.1(d) mandates the appointment of counsel for indigent PCR applicants whenever a PCR hearing is held to determine questions of law or fact.

1992See, e.g., Business Guides v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533 , 111 S.Ct. 922 , 112 L.Ed. (2d) 1140 (1991) (clear and unambiguous text in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is given its plain meaning). *535 In our view, the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 71.1(d) mandates the appointment of counsel for indigent PCR applicants whenever a PCR hearing is held to determine questions of law or fact.