State v. August B. Kreis, III

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.

August Byron Kreis, III, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002340

Appeal From Lexington County
Doyet A. Early, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-052
Submitted November 1, 2017 – Filed January 31, 2018

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: August Kreis, III, appeals his convictions of second-degree
criminal sexual conduct with a minor and lewd act on a minor, arguing the trial
court erred by (1) instructing the jury that the victims' testimony need not be
corroborated and (2) admitting evidence of a prior bad act. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to Issue 1: State v. Mattison, 388 S.C. 469, 479, 697 S.E.2d 578, 584 (2010)
("An appellate court will not reverse the trial [court's] decision regarding a jury
charge absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Hawes, 411 S.C. 188, 191, 767
S.E.2d 707, 708 (2015) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's
ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is
without evidentiary support." (quoting State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 16, 732 S.E.2d
880, 884 (2012))); State v. Stukes, 416 S.C. 493, 496, 498, 787 S.E.2d 480, 481,
482 (2016) (holding the trial court erred in charging the jury that the victim's
testimony need not be corroborated by additional evidence because it was "an
impermissible charge on the facts and therefore unconstitutional"); State v.
Belcher, 385 S.C. 597, 611, 685 S.E.2d 802, 809 (2009) ("[E]rroneous jury
instructions[] are subject to harmless error analysis."); State v. Middleton, 407 S.C.
312, 317, 755 S.E.2d 432, 435 (2014) ("When considering whether an error with
respect to a jury instruction was harmless, [this court] must 'determine beyond a
reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict.'"
(quoting State v. Kerr, 330 S.C. 132, 144-45, 498 S.E.2d 212, 218 (Ct. App.
1998))).

As to Issue 2: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The
admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed [on appeal] absent an abuse of discretion."); Hawes, 411 S.C. at 191, 767
S.E.2d at 708 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based
on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary
support." (quoting Black, 400 S.C. at 16, 732 S.E.2d at 884)); State v. Martucci,
380 S.C. 232, 252, 669 S.E.2d 598, 609 (Ct. App. 2008) ("If there is any evidence
to support the admission of bad act evidence, the trial [court]'s ruling cannot be
disturbed on appeal."); 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 433-34, 683 S.E.2d at 278 ("[T]he 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.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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