State v. Linton

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.

Anthony Linton, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-189868

Appeal From Beaufort County
Michael G. Nettles, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-595
Submitted October 1, 2012 – Filed October 31, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Staff Attorney
Julie Kate Keeney, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac
McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Anthony Linton appeals his conviction of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct with a minor, arguing the trial court erred (1) when it did not ask
during voir dire whether any juror, or their friends and relatives, was a victim of a
violent crime and (2) in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony by an expert
witness. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred when it did not ask during voir dire whether
any juror, or their friends and relatives, was a victim of a violent crime: State v.
Vang, 353 S.C. 78, 89, 577 S.E.2d 225, 230 (Ct. App. 2003) (holding the trial court
is not required to ask every voir dire question submitted by the attorneys); State v.
Hill, 361 S.C. 297, 308, 604 S.E.2d 696, 702 (2004) ("To constitute reversible
error, a limitation on questioning must render the trial 'fundamentally unfair.'"
(citations omitted)); State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 409, 272 S.E.2d 169, 172 (1980)
(holding the trial court did not err in refusing to ask each juror whether they were a
victim of a crime in the last three years).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony by
an expert witness: State v. Garner, 389 S.C. 61, 67-68, 697 S.E.2d 615, 618 (Ct.
App. 2010) ("[I]mproper admission of hearsay testimony constitutes reversible
error only when the admission causes prejudice. Such error is deemed harmless
when it could not have reasonably affected the result of the trial, and an appellate
court will not set aside a conviction for such insubstantial errors. An insubstantial
error is harmless when guilt is proven by competent evidence such that no other
rational decision could be reached . . . ." (internal quotations and citations
omitted)); Huggler v. State, 360 S.C. 627, 634-35, 602 S.E.2d 753, 757 (2004)
(holding the trial court did not err by allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony
because the evidence of abuse was overwhelming).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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