State v. Grindle ( 2008 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

James Grindle, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Cherokee County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-618
Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed November 10, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Grindle appeals his conviction for first degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, arguing the trial court erred in determining an eight-year-old was competent to testify at trial about alleged sexual abuse that occurred when the child was four.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Green, 267 S.C. 599, 603, 230 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1976) (stating the question of the competency of witnesses is to be determined by the trial court and will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion); Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 219, 355 S.E.2d 543, 547-48 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing the criteria to determine whether a child witness is competent to testify).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.