State v. Johnson

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.

Roy Johnson,
Jr., Appellant.

Appeal From Newberry County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-465  

Submitted October 1, 2011 – Filed October
21, 2011

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Jerry W. Peace, of Greenwood, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Roy
Johnson, Jr. appeals his convictions for first-degree burglary, armed robbery,
kidnapping, assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, and possession
of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime.  He argues the trial
court erred in allowing Willie Ashford, the State's witness, to testify about why
Ashford thought Johnson's clothing appeared odd.  We affirm.[1]

"[A]n insubstantial error
not affecting the result of the trial is harmless where guilt has been conclusively proven by competent
evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached."  State
v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499, 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006).  "Where a
review of the entire record establishes the error is harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt, the conviction should not be reversed."  Id.

The trial court overruled
Johnson's objection to Ashford's testimony that Johnson's clothing, wet and
with grass on it, appeared like somebody was chasing Johnson.  Even assuming Ashford's
statement was objectionable, its admission is not reversible error.  See Price, 368 S.C. at 500, 629 S.E.2d at 366 (holding
improper admission of testimony was harmless in light of the other evidence in
the record).  The record
indicates Johnson admitted participating in the events, but maintained an
alleged participant forced him.  Johnson's two co-participants testified at
trial he was a willing participant and denied the involvement of a fourth
person or forcing Johnson's participation.  Also, Ashford's testimony was
merely cumulative.  Johnson maintained he hid in ditchesevery time he saw cars, including police cars, on the
road towards Ashford's house as a result of being scared of the alleged participant.  Thus,
a review of the record establishes an error, if any, was harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.

Affirmed.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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