State v. Chappell ( 2014 )

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.
Frederick R. Chappell, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-212745
Appeal From Greenville County
D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-272
Submitted May 1, 2014 – Filed June 30, 2014
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, both of Columbia;
and Solicitor William W. Wilkins, III, of Greenville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed1 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."); State v.
Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 474-75, 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Expert
testimony concerning common behavioral characteristics of sexual assault victims
and the range of responses to sexual assault encountered by experts is admissible . .
. . Such testimony is relevant and helpful in explaining to the jury the typical
behavior patterns of adolescent victims of sexual assault."); id. at 475, 523 S.E.2d
at 794 ("There is no requirement the sexual assault victim be personally
interviewed or examined by the expert before the expert can give behavior
evidence testimony.").2
AFFIRMED.
FEW, C.J., and SHORT and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2
Chappell's contention that the expert's testimony was improper because it
constituted improper vouching for the victim is not preserved for our review. See
State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (noting
"[i]ssues not raised and ruled upon in the trial court will not be considered on
appeal" and "[a] party may not argue one ground and trial and an alternate ground
on appeal").