State v. Grindle

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

James Grindle, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County

 J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2008-UP-618

Submitted November 3, 2008 – Filed
November 10, 2008

AFFIRMED

LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
James Grindle appeals his conviction for first
degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor, arguing the trial court erred in
determining an eight-year-old was competent to testify at trial about alleged
sexual abuse that occurred when the child was four.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Green, 267 S.C. 599, 603, 230 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1976) (stating the
question of the competency of witnesses is to be determined by the trial court
and will not be reversed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of
discretion); Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Doe, 292 S.C. 211, 219, 355 S.E.2d
543, 547-48 (Ct. App. 1987) (listing the criteria to determine whether a
child witness is competent to testify).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
PIEPER, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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