State v. Craig A. George ( 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.
    Craig Antonio George, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2021-000581
    Appeal From Florence County
    D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-380
    Submitted November 1, 2023 – Filed December 6, 2023
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
    Columbia, for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
    Assistant Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing,
    both of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements,
    III, of Florence, all for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Craig Antonio George appeals his convictions for kidnapping
    and first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) and his concurrent sentences of life
    imprisonment. On appeal, George argues the trial court erred in limiting his
    cross-examination of the victim regarding the content of the books she authored
    about angels. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.
    We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of
    the victim because George sought to use the excluded testimony, which was
    evidence of the victim's religious beliefs, to show the victim had "a very active
    imagination," in violation of Rule 610, SCRE. See State v. Black, 
    400 S.C. 10
    , 16,
    
    732 S.E.2d 880
    , 884 (2012) ("In criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review
    only errors of law, and it is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless they
    are clearly erroneous."); 
    id.
     ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the
    sound discretion of the trial [court], whose decision will not be reversed on appeal
    absent an abuse of discretion."); 
    id.
     ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
    court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions,
    is without evidentiary support."); Rule 610, SCRE ("Evidence of the beliefs or
    opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of
    showing that by reason of their nature the witness' credibility is impaired or
    enhanced."); State v. Williams, 
    263 S.C. 290
    , 302, 
    210 S.E.2d 298
    , 304 (1974)
    ("[T]he sole object of the rule against impeachment on collateral matters is to
    prevent confusion of issue and unfair surprise."); 
    id.
     (explaining that due to the
    difficulty of deciding identifying collateral matters, "considerable latitude and
    discretion should be allowed the trial [court] in determining the admissibility of
    impeaching 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-380

Filed Date: 12/6/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024