State v. Jenkins

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.

Wayne Jenkins, Appellant.

Appeal From Hampton County

 Perry M. Buckner, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-308

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed June 10,
2010

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER
CURIAM:  Wayne Jenkins appeals his conviction for second-degree
criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  On appeal, Jenkins argues the trial
court erred in finding the rape shield statute barred Jenkins from presenting
evidence of the victim's prior false allegations of sexual assault. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities:  S.C. Code
Ann. § 16-3-659.1(1) (2003) ("Evidence of specific instances of the victim's
sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the victim's sexual conduct, and reputation
evidence of the victim's sexual conduct is not admissible in prosecutions . . .
."); State v. Boiter, 302 S.C. 381, 383, 396 S.E.2d 364, 365 (1990) ("Although
the Confrontation Clause 'tips the scales' in favor of permitting
cross-examination if it could reasonably be expected to have an effect on the
jury, a court may prohibit cross-examination for impeachment purposes when the
probative value of the evidence that the defendant seeks to elicit is
substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice."); State v. McLeod,
362 S.C. 73, 79, 606 S.E.2d 215, 218 (Ct. App. 2004) ("The admission or exclusion
of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge."); Id. at 82, 606 S.E.2d at 220 ("Error is harmless
where it could not reasonably have affected the result of the trial.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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