State v. Kevin J. McKinnon

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.

Kevin J. McKinnon, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2020-001378

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-162
Submitted April 1, 2023 – Filed April 26, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Kevin J. McKinnon appeals his conviction of first-degree
criminal sexual conduct with a minor and sentence of thirty-five years'
imprisonment. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred by refusing to allow him
to identify a prior abuser of the victim's (Victim's) cousin. We affirm.

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow McKinnon
to identify a prior abuser of Victim's cousin by name. See 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 judge, whose decision will not be reversed
on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Fields v. Reg'l Med. Ctr. Orangeburg,
363 S.C. 19, 26, 609 S.E.2d 506, 509 (2005) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when
the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without
evidentiary support."). Evidence of the cousin's prior abuse was admitted through
the testimony of multiple individuals at trial. See Grovenstein v. State, 340 S.C.
210, 219, 530 S.E.2d 406, 411 (Ct. App. 2000) ("[E]vidence of a child victim's
prior sexual experience is relevant to demonstrate that the defendant is not
necessarily the source of the victim's ability to testify about alleged sexual
conduct."). Furthermore, the jury was presented with Victim's and Cousin's
conflicting testimonies and still found McKinnon guilty. Accordingly, we find
allowing McKinnon to identify the prior abuser by name would not have altered
the jury's verdict. See Vaught v. A.O. Hardee & Sons, Inc., 366 S.C. 475, 480, 623
S.E.2d 373, 375 (2005) ("To warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion
of evidence, the appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting
prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability the jury's verdict was influenced by
the wrongly admitted or excluded evidence."); State v. Reyes, 432 S.C. 394, 401,
853 S.E.2d 334, 338 (2020) ("[T]he credibility of a witness is exclusively for the
jury to decide.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and GEATHERS and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

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