State v. Pou

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: March 4, 2015
• Docket: 2015-UP-115
• Status: Unpublished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.

William Pou, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213617

Appeal From Aiken County Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-115 Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 4, 2015

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, 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. Chavis, Op. No. 27491 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Feb. 4, 2015) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 5 at 20, 23) ("A trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony will not be reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); Rule 702, SCRE ("If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."); State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 474-75, 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Expert testimony concerning common behavioral characteristics of sexual assault victims and the range of responses to sexual assault encountered by experts is admissible. . . . It assists the jury in understanding some of the aspects of the behavior of victims and provides insight into the sexually abused child's often strange demeanor."); Chavis at 25 ("'[I]t is improper for a witness to testify as to his or her opinion about the credibility of a child victim in a sexual abuse matter.'" (quoting State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 358-59, 737 S.E.2d 490, 500 (2013))); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 506, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("[B]oth expert testimony and behavioral evidence are admissible as rape trauma evidence to prove a sexual offense occurred where the probative value of such evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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