State v. Ryals ( 2019 )

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.
Cary Glenn Ryals, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2017-001090
Appeal From Berkeley County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-355
Submitted October 1, 2019 – Filed November 6, 2019
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Victor R. Seeger, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General William Frederick Schumacher, IV,
both of Columbia, and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Cary Glenn Ryals appeals his conviction for harassment in the
second degree, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert
testimony because the testimony (1) was on a subject within the ordinary
knowledge of a jury, (2) was irrelevant, and (3) improperly bolstered the credibility
of the victim. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony
on a subject within the ordinary knowledge of the jury: Watson v. Ford Motor Co.,
389 S.C. 434, 445, 699 S.E.2d 169, 175 (2010) ("Expert testimony may be used to
help the jury to determine a fact in issue based on the expert's specialized
knowledge, experience, or skill and is necessary in cases in which the subject
matter falls outside the realm of ordinary lay knowledge."); State v. Jones, 423
S.C. 631, 635, 817 S.E.2d 268, 270 (2018) ("The admissibility of an expert's
testimony is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion and the determination
will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("A trial court's
ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion
where the ruling is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law.");
id. at 637, 816 S.E.2d at 271 (holding in a sexual abuse case that expert testimony
regarding behavioral characteristics that do not comport with what a reasonable
person would expect under the circumstances is subject matter outside the ordinary
knowledge of the jury).
2. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony
that was irrelevant: State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 354, 818 S.E.2d 21, 27 (Ct. App.
2018) ("Under Rule 401, SCRE, evidence is relevant if it has a direct bearing upon
and tends to establish or make more or less probable the matter in controversy.")
(quoting State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003));
State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 474-75, 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999)
(holding expert testimony concerning common behavioral characteristics of
victims is relevant and helpful in educating the jury on certain aspects of victim
behavior).
3. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony
that improperly bolstered the credibility of the witness: State v. Kromah, 401 S.C.
340, 358, 737 S.E.2d 490, 499 (2013) ("[E]ven though experts are permitted to
give an opinion, they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of
others."); State v. McKerley, 397 S.C. 461, 464, 725 S.E.2d 139, 141 (Ct. App.
2012) ("The assessment of a witness's credibility is within the exclusive province
of the jury."); State v. Brown, 411 S.C. 332, 345, 768 S.E.2d 246, 253 (Ct. App.
2015) (holding expert testimony on generalized behavioral characteristics of
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
victims of abuse does not improperly bolster the victim's credibility), abrogated on
other grounds by State v. Jones, 423 S.C. 631, 817 S.E.2d 268 (2018).
AFFIRMED.
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.