State v. Jonathan William Ray

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.

Jonathan William Ray, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001743

Appeal From Kershaw County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Trial Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-076
Submitted February 8, 2022 – Filed February 16, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, and Solicitor
Byron E. Gipson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jonathan William Ray appeals his conviction and eight-year
sentence for second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor arising out
of the rape of a thirteen-year-old girl (Minor) in May 2017. On appeal, Ray argues
the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of his prior convictions
for breaking and entering automobiles without engaging in the balancing test set
forth in State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 627, 525 S.E.2d 246, 248 (2000).

We recognize the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Ray's prior convictions
without performing an on-the-record analysis of whether the probative value of the
convictions outweighed their prejudicial effect;1 however, we affirm because the
trial court's error was harmless. See State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 444, 710 S.E.2d
55, 58 (2011) ("To warrant reversal based on the wrongful admission of evidence,
the complaining party must prove resulting prejudice."). Here, Minor's forensic
medical exam found two tears in her hymen which where "highly suspicious" for
"sexual contact or trauma," and Minor's STD screen in April 2018 revealed she had
contracted chlamydia, for which Ray tested positive in August 2017. Additionally,
in order to try to refute Minor's timeline of events, Ray impeached his own
credibility by admitting to criminal conduct and testifying he was arrested for
breach of peace—at the residence where the sexual assault took place—in May
2017.

Accordingly, we find the trial court's error in admitting Ray's previous convictions
was harmless in light of the physical evidence of Ray's guilt and because it was
cumulative for impeachment purposes. See State v. Bryant, 369 S.C. 511, 518, 633
S.E.2d 152, 156 (2006) ("[A]n insubstantial error not affecting the result of the trial
is harmless where a defendant's guilt has been conclusively proven by competent
evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached."); State v. McLeod,
362 S.C. 73, 82-83, 606 S.E.2d 215, 220 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission of
improper evidence is harmless where the evidence is merely cumulative to other
evidence.").

1
See Colf, 337 S.C. at 627, 525 S.E.2d at 248 (explaining the factors trial courts
should weigh in determining whether to admit evidence of a defendant's prior
convictions); State v. Robinson, 426 S.C. 579, 595, 828 S.E.2d 203, 211 (2019)
("[U]nder Rule 609(a)(1) [of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence], if the witness
is the accused and has a prior conviction of a crime punishable by death or
imprisonment for more than one year, the trial court must balance the Colf factors
and determine whether the probative value of the conviction outweighs its
prejudicial effect to the accused."); State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 19, 732 S.E.2d 880,
885 (2012) (holding that when performing the Colf balancing test, the trial court
should "articulat[e] for the record the specific facts and circumstances supporting
its decision . . . .[,]" and "must state not only whether the probative value of the
prior conviction substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect, but also why").
AFFIRMED. 2

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.