State v. Pou ( 2015 )

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.
William Pou, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-213617
Appeal From Aiken County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-115
Submitted February 1, 2015 – Filed March 4, 2015
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, 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. Chavis, Op. No. 27491 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Feb. 4, 2015)
(Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 5 at 20, 23) ("A trial court's decision to admit or exclude
expert testimony will not be reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion.");
Rule 702, SCRE ("If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a
witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."); 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. . . . It assists the jury in understanding some of the aspects of the
behavior of victims and provides insight into the sexually abused child's often
strange demeanor."); Chavis at 25 ("'[I]t is improper for a witness to testify as to
his or her opinion about the credibility of a child victim in a sexual abuse matter.'"
(quoting State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 358-59, 737 S.E.2d 490, 500 (2013)));
State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 506, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) ("[B]oth expert
testimony and behavioral evidence are admissible as rape trauma evidence to prove
a sexual offense occurred where the probative value of such evidence outweighs its
prejudicial effect.").
AFFIRMED.1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.