State v. Miller

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.

Antoine Miller, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-194

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 28,
2011   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., and Solicitor Dan
Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Antoine
Miller appeals his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a
minor.   Miller contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a
videotaped interview of the minor victim pursuant to section 17-23-175 of the
South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010).  Miller argues the videotape constituted
hearsay, bolstering, and a denial of his rights to both confrontation and a
fair trial.  Miller also argues the trial court erred in failing to make a specific
finding of the need for the videotape.  We affirm[1] pursuant to
Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-23-175(A) ("In a general sessions court proceeding . . .
an out-of-court statement of a child is admissible if: (1) the statement was
given in response to questioning conducted during an investigative interview of
the child; (2) an audio and visual recording of the statement is preserved on
film, videotape, or other electronic means . . . ; (3) the child testifies at
the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination on the elements of the
offense and the making of the out-of-court statement; and (4) the court finds,
in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the totality of
the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement provides
particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."); State v. Saltz,
346 S.C. 114, 121, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001) ("The admission or exclusion
of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial [court], whose
decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark
v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("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."). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT,
and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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