State v. Dustin G. Ready ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Dustin Geoffrey Ready, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2021-000598
    Appeal From Greenville County
    Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-385
    Submitted November 1, 2023 – Filed December 6, 2023
    AFFIRMED
    Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
    Columbia, for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
    Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
    Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of
    Greenville, all for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Dustin Geoffrey Ready appeals his conviction for first-degree
    criminal sexual conduct with a minor (CSCM) and sentence of thirty years'
    imprisonment. On appeal, Ready argues the trial court abused its discretion by
    refusing to ask a requested question during voir dire. We affirm pursuant to Rule
    220(b), SCACR.
    We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to ask Ready's
    requested question because the question required potential jurors to determine if
    they would believe a certain type of witness—here, a child—prior to the start of
    trial. See State v. Wise, 
    359 S.C. 14
    , 23, 
    596 S.E.2d 475
    , 479 (2004) ("The scope
    of voir dire and the manner in which it is conducted are generally left to the sound
    discretion of the trial court."); State v. McDonald, 
    343 S.C. 319
    , 325, 
    540 S.E.2d 464
    , 467 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is
    based on an error of law."); State v. Coaxum, 
    410 S.C. 320
    , 327, 
    764 S.E.2d 242
    ,
    245 (2014) ("To protect both parties' right to an impartial jury, the trial court must
    conduct voir dire of the prospective jurors to determinate whether the jurors are
    aware of any bias or prejudice against a party, as well as to 'elicit such facts as will
    enable [the parties] intelligently to exercise their right of peremptory challenge.'"
    (quoting State v. Woods, 
    345 S.C. 583
    , 587, 
    550 S.E.2d 282
    , 284 (2001))); Wall v.
    Keels, 
    331 S.C. 310
    , 318, 
    501 S.E.2d 754
    , 757 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[A]s a general
    rule, the trial court is not required to ask all voir dire questions submitted by the
    attorneys."); State v. Stanko, 
    376 S.C. 571
    , 576, 
    658 S.E.2d 94
    , 96 (2008) ("To
    constitute reversible error, a limitation on questioning must render the trial
    fundamentally unfair."); State v. Adams, 
    279 S.C. 228
    , 235, 
    306 S.E.2d 208
    , 212
    (1983) (holding a voir dire question asking whether a juror would "believe a police
    officer's testimony before that of a private citizen" impermissibly "call[ed] upon
    the juror to make a determination in his own mind as to whether one class of
    persons [wa]s more credible than another"), overruled on other grounds by State v.
    Torrence, 
    305 S.C. 45
    , 
    406 S.E.2d 315
     (1991); 
    id.
     ("A juror should not, prior to
    trial, be required to assert which witnesses he will believe nor what type of witness
    he will believe. This is true because a juror should believe those witnesses whose
    credibility appeal to him after he has heard all of the testimony.").
    AFFIRMED. 1
    WILLIAMS, C.J., and HEWITT, and VERDIN, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2023-UP-385

Filed Date: 12/6/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024