State v. Peters

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.
Mark Stanley Peters, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2012-205886
Appeal From Pickens County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-187
Heard March 5, 2014 – Filed May 7, 2014
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Mark Peters appeals his convictions for committing a lewd act
upon a minor, arguing the trial court erred in qualifying Shauna Galloway-
Williams (Williams) as an expert in "counseling children who are victims of sexual
abuse and their family members." We affirm.
Expert witness testimony must meet the "threshold foundational requirements of
qualification[] and reliability." State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 274, 676 S.E.2d 684,
689 (2009). The qualification of a witness as an expert and the subsequent
admission of that witness's opinion testimony are matters within the sound
discretion of the trial court. State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 498, 629 S.E.2d 363, 365
(2006). "The trial court's decision to admit expert testimony will not be reversed
on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." Id. "[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." State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 506, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862
(1993). However, "[t]he rules of evidence do not allow witnesses to vouch for or
offer opinions on the credibility of others." State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 357
n.5, 737 S.E.2d 490, 499 n.5 (2013). "Further, even though experts are permitted
to give an opinion, they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of
others. It is undeniable that the primary purpose for calling a 'forensic interviewer'
as a witness is to lend credibility to the victim's allegations." Id. at 358, 737 S.E.2d
at 499.
As we read Peters' objection to Williams's qualification as an expert at trial, his
objection was premised upon the fact that Williams had not met the victims and
knew nothing about the facts of the case. In State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460,
473, 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999), this court addressed a case similar to
Peters' wherein a defendant challenged behavioral evidence testimony in a sex
abuse case in which the expert had never interviewed or met the victim. In
Weaverling, the trial court qualified a social worker as an expert in "the field of
victims of sexual abuse." Id. The expert's knowledge of the case was limited to
her discussions with the State. Id. The Weaverling court surveyed case law from
this state and other jurisdictions and concluded the testimony was admissible
notwithstanding the expert's failure to interview the child. Id. at 474-75, 523
S.E.2d at 794. Ultimately, the Weaverling court held "[t]here is no requirement the
sexual assault victim be personally interviewed or examined by the expert before
the expert can give behavioral evidence testimony. The fact that the expert does
not personally interview the victim bears on the weight of the behavioral evidence
not on its admissibility." Id. at 475, 523 S.E.2d at 794.
We find no error in Williams's qualification as an expert. Williams testified she
was a licensed professional counselor, with a bachelor's degree in psychology and
a master's degree in counseling. She stated most of her training included working
specifically with children and families in situations where there were allegations of
abuse and neglect. She attended training seminars regarding sexual abuse
survivors and worked on multiple cases involving sexually abused children.
Although Williams testified she conducts forensic interviews as a part of her job
duties, she confirmed she did not conduct a forensic interview in this case.
Furthermore, the State did not proffer her as an expert forensic interviewer of
children, and Peters repeatedly argued Williams did not conduct a forensic
1
interview. The State did not call Williams as a forensic interviewer to lend
credibility to the victims' allegations. See Kromah, 401 S.C. at 358, 737 S.E.2d at
499. In fact, Williams never directly or indirectly commented on the credibility of
the victims' accounts of the alleged sexual assaults.
Instead, Williams's testimony simply explained the effects a sexual trauma may
have on a child's subsequent behavior following the trauma. We find the probative
value of her testimony outweighed any alleged prejudicial effect. Moreover, the
fact that Williams had never met either of the victims in this case, nor had she met
any of the parties involved, goes to the weight of her testimony, not its
admissibility. Weaverling, 337 S.C. at 475, 523 S.E.2d at 794.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying Williams as an expert or
admitting her testimony. Accordingly, the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
HUFF and THOMAS, JJ., and CURETON, A.J., concur.
1
To the extent Peters argues error on appeal resting on the lack of reliability of
Williams's testimony, we find that argument is not preserved for review. Peters
objected only to the qualification of Williams as an expert based on her
unfamiliarity with the facts; he never objected to the reliability of Williams's
testimony as it relates to her expertise in the area of counseling children who
suffered sexual abuse. See State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 216, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214
(1998) (holding an issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be
preserved for appellate review).