State v. Poe

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: December 10, 2014
• Docket: 2014-UP-447
• Status: Unpublished

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 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Carolyn Poe, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000356

Appeal From Aiken County J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-447 Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of Aiken, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 137, 731 S.E.2d 604, 610 (Ct. App. 2012) ("[T]he scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court, and the court's decision will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of prejudice."); State v. Sapps, 295 S.C. 484, 486, 369 S.E.2d 145, 145-46 (1988) ("It is improper for the solicitor to cross-examine a witness in such a manner as to force him to attack the veracity of another witness."); Burgess v. State, 329 S.C. 88, 91, 495 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1998) ("[I]mproper pitting constitutes reversible error only if the accused is unfairly prejudiced."); id. (holding the petitioner was not prejudiced by improper witness pitting in light of the other evidence presented in the case); State v. Pradubsri, 403 S.C. 270, 280, 743 S.E.2d 98, 104 (Ct. App. 2013) ("[T]he materiality and prejudicial character of [an] error must be determined from its relationship to the entire case." (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

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