State v. Williams II ( 2022 )

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 Supreme Court
The State, Respondent,
v.
Joseph Campbell Williams II, Petitioner.
Appellate Case No. 2020-001262
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
Appeal from Pickens County
Perry H. Gravely, Circuit Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion No. 2022-MO-001
Heard November 10, 2021 – Filed January 12, 2022
AFFIRMED
J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Petitioner.
Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney
General Joshua A. Edwards, both of Columbia; and
Thirteenth Circuit Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins III, of
Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: We granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the court
of appeals in State v. Williams, Op. No. 2020-UP-199 (S.C. Ct. App. filed July 1,
2020). Williams was convicted of first and second degree criminal sexual conduct
with a minor and sentenced to forty years in prison. The minor victim was
Williams' stepdaughter. On appeal, Williams argues the trial court erred in
excluding evidence that the minor victim had falsely accused others of sexual
abuse. It is Williams' position that evidence of false accusations of sexual abuse
does not constitute "prior sexual conduct" for purposes of the "Rape Shield"
Statute. See S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-659.1 (2015). More to the point, Williams
contends evidence of false accusations of sexual abuse "is more properly
understood as verbal conduct, not sexual conduct." The State's response to this
ostensibly meritorious argument is to follow the lead of the court of appeals and
assert the issue was not properly preserved in the trial court. We are constrained to
agree with the court of appeals that this issue is not preserved for direct appellate
review. We further find Williams' effort to bolster his evidentiary challenge
through the purportedly improper closing argument of the prosecutor was not
preserved in the trial court.1 Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals.
AFFIRMED.
BEATTY, C.J., KITTREDGE, HEARN, JAMES, JJ., and Acting Justice
DeAndrea Gist Benjamin, concur.
1
The prosecution successfully prevented Williams from fully explaining why he
did not want to be alone with the minor victim. The trial court then prevented
Williams from making a full proffer. Seizing upon this, the prosecutor in closing
argument attacked the defense for the absence of such evidence. We recognize the
regrettable practice (a tactic utilized by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike) to
successfully exclude evidence and then leverage the lack of that evidence in
closing argument. There was no objection to the State's closing argument. As with
the primary issue raised in Petitioner's brief, this issue may be addressed in a
collateral proceeding.