State v. Acanfora

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
Acanfora, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-512  

Heard November 16, 2011 – Filed November
28, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson and Appellate
Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, both of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Anthony
Acanfora appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary.  He argues the
trial court erred in two respects: (1) denying his motions for a directed
verdict and new trial and (2) prohibiting him from questioning a witness
pursuant to the Confrontation Clause and Rule 608(c), SCRE, about the State's
dismissal of warrants issued against the witness for the same charges issued
against Acanfora.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities: 

1.  As to the first
issue: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-312(B)(3) (2003)
("A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters
a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and
. . . [t]he entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime."); State v. Thompson, 374 S.C. 257, 262, 647 S.E.2d 702, 705 (Ct. App.
2007) ("Mere presence and prior knowledge that a crime was going to be
committed, without more, is insufficient to constitute guilt.  However,
presence at the scene of a crime by pre-arrangement to aid, encourage, or abet
in the perpetration of the crime constitutes guilt as a [principal]."
(alteration in quoted sentence) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted)); id. at 263-64, 647 S.E.2d at 705-06 (holding the record
contained sufficient evidence the defendant aided another in the commission of
a burglary).

2.  As to
the second issue: State v. Page, 378 S.C. 476, 485, 663 S.E.2d 357, 361
(Ct. App. 2008) (holding that even if the trial court erred, the alleged error
"was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"); see also State
v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333, 563 S.E.2d 315, 318 (2002) ("Whether an
error is harmless depends on the particular facts of each case and upon a host
of factors including: the importance of the witness'[s] testimony in the
prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or
absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness
on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and of
course the overall strength of the prosecution's case.").

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.