State v. Miller ( 2018 )

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.
Stanley Miller, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2016-001086
Appeal From Charleston County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-158
Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed April 18, 2018
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Stanley Miller appeals his conviction of third-degree criminal
sexual conduct with a minor, for which the trial court sentenced him to fifteen
years' imprisonment. On appeal, Miller argues the trial court abused its discretion
in (1) admitting a video recording of a forensic interview with his step-daughter
(Minor) and (2) allowing Minor's testimony regarding prior bad acts committed by
Miller. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
As to issue 1: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The
admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when
the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled
by an error of law."); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-175(A) (2014) (providing an
out-of-court statement of a child under twelve is admissible if "(1) the statement
was given in response to questioning conducted during an investigative interview
of the child; (2) an audio and visual recording of the statement is preserved on
film, videotape, or other electronic means . . . ; (3) the child testifies at the
proceeding and is subject to cross[-]examination on the elements of the offense and
the making of the out-of-court statement; and (4) the court finds, in a hearing
conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the making of the statement provides particularized guarantees of
trustworthiness"); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-175(B) (2014) ("In determining
whether a statement possesses particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, the
court may consider, but is not limited to, the following factors: (1) whether the
statement was elicited by leading questions; (2) whether the interviewer has been
trained in conducting investigative interviews of children; (3) whether the
statement represents a detailed account of the alleged offense; (4) whether the
statement has internal coherence; and (5) sworn testimony of any participant which
may be determined as necessary by the court.").
As to issue 2: State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 468, 523 S.E.2d 787, 791 (Ct.
App. 1999) ("The decision to admit contested evidence rests within the sound
discretion of the trial [court]."); id. at 467, 523 S.E.2d at 791 ("Generally, South
Carolina law precludes evidence of a defendant's prior crimes or other bad acts to
prove the defendant's guilt for the crime charged."); Rule 404(b), SCRE
(establishing evidence of prior bad acts may "be admissible to show motive,
identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or
accident, or intent"); Weaverling, 337 S.C. at 468, 523 S.E.2d at 791 ("If not the
subject of a conviction, proof of prior bad acts must be clear and convincing.");
State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428, 433, 683 S.E.2d 275, 277-78 (2009) ("When
determining whether evidence is admissible as common scheme or plan, the trial
court must analyze the similarities and dissimilarities between the crime charged
and the bad act evidence to determine whether there is a close degree of
similarity."); id. at 433, 683 S.E.2d at 278 ("When the similarities outweigh the
dissimilarities, the bad act evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b)."); id. at
433-34, 683 S.E.2d at 278 ("Although not a complete list, in this type of case, the
trial court should consider the following factors when determining whether there is
a close degree of similarity between the bad act and the crime charged: (1) the age
of the victims when the abuse occurred; (2) the relationship between the victims
and the perpetrator; (3) the location where the abuse occurred; (4) the use of
coercion or threats; and (5) the manner of the occurrence, for example, the type of
sexual battery."); id. at 435, 683 S.E.2d at 278 ("Once bad act evidence is found
admissible under Rule 404(b), the trial court must then conduct the prejudice
analysis required by Rule 403, SCRE.").
AFFIRMED.1
LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.