State v. Poe ( 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.
Carolyn Poe, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-000356
Appeal From Aiken County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-447
Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Benjamin John Tripp, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of
Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 137, 731 S.E.2d 604, 610 (Ct. App.
2012) ("[T]he scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court,
and the court's decision will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of
prejudice."); State v. Sapps, 295 S.C. 484, 486, 369 S.E.2d 145, 145-46 (1988) ("It
is improper for the solicitor to cross-examine a witness in such a manner as to
force him to attack the veracity of another witness."); Burgess v. State, 329 S.C.
88, 91, 495 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1998) ("[I]mproper pitting constitutes reversible error
only if the accused is unfairly prejudiced."); id. (holding the petitioner was not
prejudiced by improper witness pitting in light of the other evidence presented in
the case); State v. Pradubsri, 403 S.C. 270, 280, 743 S.E.2d 98, 104 (Ct. App.
2013) ("[T]he materiality and prejudicial character of [an] error must be
determined from its relationship to the entire case." (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.