State v. Bagley ( 2012 )

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.
Charles Richard Bagley, III, Appellant.
__________
Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
__________
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-446
Submitted June 1, 2012 – Filed July 18, 2012
__________
AFFIRMED
__________
Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M.
Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin S.
Brackett, of York, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Charles Richard Bagley, III appeals his convictions of
two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, lewd act
upon a child, and dissemination of harmful material to a minor. Bagley
argues the circuit court erred in (1) overruling his objection to one of the
State's questions and (2) charging the jury that the testimony of a victim of
criminal sexual conduct need not be corroborated. We affirm1 pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the circuit court erred in overruling Bagley's
objection to the State's question about Bagley's sexual relationships: State v.
White, 371 S.C. 439, 445, 639 S.E.2d 160, 163 (Ct. App. 2006) ("Because a
[circuit] court's curative instruction is considered to cure any error regarding
improper testimony, a party must contemporaneously object to a curative
instruction as insufficient or move for a mistrial to preserve an issue for
review." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2. As to whether the circuit court erred in charging the jury that the
testimony of a victim of criminal sexual conduct need not be corroborated:
State v. Rayfield, 369 S.C. 106, 117-18, 631 S.E.2d 244, 250 (2006) ("A
[circuit court] is not required to charge § 16-3-657, but when the [court]
chooses to do so, giving the charge does not constitute reversible error when
this single instruction is not unduly emphasized and the charge as a whole
comports with the law.").
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.