State v. Grindle

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

State v. Grindle

DecidedNovember 10, 2008

Docket2008-UP-618

StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Grindle (State v. Grindle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Grindle, (S.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

James Grindle, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-618
Submitted November 3, 2008 Filed November 10, 2008

AFFIRMED

LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Grindle appeals his conviction for first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, arguing the trial court erred in determining an eight-year-old was competent to testify at trial about alleged sexual abuse that occurred when the child was four. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 603, 230 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1976) (stating the question of the competency of witnesses is to be determined by the trial court and will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); Dept of Soc. Servs. v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 219, 355 S.E.2d 543, 547-48 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing the criteria to determine whether a child witness is competent to testify).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

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

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

James Grindle, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-618
Submitted November 3, 2008 Filed November 10, 2008

AFFIRMED

LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Grindle appeals his conviction for first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, arguing the trial court erred in determining an eight-year-old was competent to testify at trial about alleged sexual abuse that occurred when the child was four. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 603, 230 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1976) (stating the question of the competency of witnesses is to be determined by the trial court and will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); Dept of Soc. Servs. v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 219, 355 S.E.2d 543, 547-48 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing the criteria to determine whether a child witness is competent to testify).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State v. Grindle, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grindle-scctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack