State v. Whitsett ( 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.
Jefferey Lance Whitsett, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2017-001498
Appeal From Berkeley County
Kristi Lea Harrington, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-418
Submitted November 1, 2019 – Filed December 31, 2019
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jefferey Lance Whitsett appeals his convictions for five counts
of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in the first degree, one count of criminal
sexual conduct with a minor in the third degree, and one count of exposing another
to Human Immunodeficiency Virus. On appeal, Whitsett argues the trial court
erred in admitting the forensic interview of the nine-year-old victim because the
victim's competency and credibility were not established at the forensic interview.
However, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the
forensic interview. The trial court evaluated the interview in light of the factors set
forth in section 17-23-175(A) and (B) of the South Carolina Code (2014).
Moreover, the record supports each of the trial court's findings. Accordingly, we
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48 (2006) ("The admission or
exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court
and its ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion
accompanied by probable prejudice."); id. at 429-30, 632 S.E.2d at 848. ("An
abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack
evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Whitner, 399
S.C. 547, 558, 732 S.E.2d 861, 867 (2012) ("[I]n [criminal sexual conduct] cases
involving minors, the Legislature has made specific allowances for such hearsay
statements of child victims under the proper circumstances."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 17-23-175(A) (2014) ("[A]n out-of-court statement of a child is admissible if: (1)
the statement was given in response to questioning conducted during an
investigative interview of the child; (2) an audio and visual recording of the
statement is preserved on film, videotape, or other electronic means, except as
provided in subsection (F); (3) the child testifies at the proceeding and is subject to
cross-examination on the elements of the offense and the making of the out-of-
court statement; and (4) the court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the
presence of the jury, that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making
of the statement provides particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."); S.C. Code
Ann. § 17-23-175(B) (2014) ("In determining whether a statement possesses
particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, the court may consider, but is not
limited to, the following factors: (1) whether the statement was elicited by leading
questions; (2) whether the interviewer has been trained in conducting investigative
interviews of children; (3) whether the statement represents a detailed account of
the alleged offense; (4) whether the statement has internal coherence; and (5)
sworn testimony of any participant which may be determined as necessary by the
court.").
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.