State v. Bradley

362 S.E.2d 19, 293 S.C. 526, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 342
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedNovember 9, 1987
Docket22794
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 362 S.E.2d 19 (State v. Bradley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Bradley, 362 S.E.2d 19, 293 S.C. 526, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 342 (S.C. 1987).

Opinion

Gregory, Justice:

Appellant was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct and committing a lewd act upon a minor. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of twenty-five and ten years. We affirm.

*527 The victim is appellant’s daughter. She was six years old at the time of trial. Her testimony was taken by videotaped deposition pursuant to S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-1530(G) (1985). Appellant does not challenge his daughter’s competence as a witness.

The victim testified that her father penetrated her vagina on many occasions with his finger or penis and that she would hurt and bleed. Her testimony is coherent and consistent. Dr. Schue, a pediatrician, testified that the victim’s hymen was damaged and her vagina enlarged indicating repeated penetration.

Dr. Schue also testified regarding common indicators of child sexual abuse including role-playing and sexually explicit behavior. This evidence is inadmissible as proof of the offense. State v. Hudnall, 293 S. C. 97, 359 S. E. (2d) 59 (1987). We find, however, that the error in its admission is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of appellant’s guilt, including the victim’s competent testimony and the medical evidence. See State v. Gaskins, 284 S. C. 105, 326 S. E. (2d) 132 (1985).

Appellant’s remaining exceptions are without merit and are disposed of pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23. See State v. South, 285 S. C. 529, 331 S. E. (2d) 775 (1985) (error harmless if hearsay merely cumulative); State v. Owens, 291 S. C. 116, 352 S. E. (2d) 474 (1987) (sufficiency of indictment); State v. Bailey, 276 S. C. 32, 274 S. E. (2d) 913 (1981) (admission of photograph within trial judge’s discretion). Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is

Affirmed.

Ness, C. J., and Harwell, Chandler and Finney, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Morgan
485 S.E.2d 112 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1997)
State v. Trotter
453 S.E.2d 905 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1995)
State v. West
438 S.E.2d 256 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1993)
State v. Schumpert
435 S.E.2d 859 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
362 S.E.2d 19, 293 S.C. 526, 1987 S.C. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bradley-sc-1987.