State v. Edwards ( 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.

Kenneth Carlton Edwards, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-716
Heard November 6, 2008 – Filed December 19, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Mario A. Pacella, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Solicitor B. Giese, all of Columbia; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this appeal from a conviction for kidnapping and assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony regarding Appellant's fifteen-year-old arrest because it was (1) inadmissible character evidence or (2) because the evidence's prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value pursuant to Rule 403, SCRE.  Appellant further asserts (3) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony of a prior consistent statement and (4) the combined errors constitute reversible error.  We affirm.  

1.  As to issue one: State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 216, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1998) (noting an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review); State v. Byram, 326 S.C. 107, 119, 485 S.E.2d 360, 366 (1997) (stating to preserve an issue for appeal, the issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court). 

2.  As to issue two: State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence where the probative value was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect); State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 338, 665 S.E.2d 201, 207 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating broad deference is given to the trial court in reviewing its Rule 403, SCRE, determination); State v. Major, 301 S.C. 181, 186, 391 S.E.2d 235, 238 (1990) (stating when the defendant offers testimony of his own good character, the State may cross-examine on that assertion); State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 415-16, 605 S.E.2d 540, 544 (2004) (holding an expert could testify to her belief in the victim because the defendant opened the door to such an inquiry); State v. Dunlap, 353 S.C. 539, 541, 579 S.E.2d 318, 319 (2003) (holding the trial court did not err in allowing the State to introduce evidence of the defendant's prior drug record because the defendant opened the door to being contradicted with such evidence when defendant's counsel asserted the defendant was merely a drug user); State v. Page, 378 S.C. 476, 482, 663 S.E.2d 357, 360 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating otherwise inadmissible evidence may be properly admitted when the defendant opens the door to that evidence); State v. Dawkins, 297 S.C. 386, 392, 377 S.E.2d 298, 302 (1989) (stating a curative instruction is usually deemed to have cured an alleged error).

3.  As to issue three: State v. Davis, 371 S.C. 170, 178-79, 638 S.E.2d 57, 62 (2006) (stating an error is harmless when it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial). 

4.  As to issue four: See Whiteside v. Cherokee County School Dist. No. One, 311 S.C. 335, 428 S.E.2d 886 (1993) (finding the court need not address remaining issue when resolution of prior issue is dispositive). 

AFFIRMED.

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