State v. Rosemond

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.

Jerry L.
Rosemond, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-375

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 27,
2010   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; Solicitor
Robert M. Arial, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jerry L. Rosemond appeals his conviction
for strong arm robbery, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay
testimony regarding his identity into evidence.  We affirm.[1]          

At
trial, a police officer who participated in the search for the robber stated an
elderly woman at the residence where the robbery occurred identified Rosemond
as the man who matched the description of the robber.  Rosemond contends this
statement constitutes inadmissible hearsay.  The State argues the statement was
not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but was offered to explain
how the police officer was conducting her investigation.  However, even
assuming the statement was hearsay, its admission by the trial court was
harmless.  See State v. Weston, 367 S.C. 279, 288, 625 S.E.2d 641,
646 (2006) ("The improper admission of hearsay is reversible error only
when the admission causes prejudice.").  The admission of the hearsay
statement in this case was harmless because it was cumulative to other similar
testimony offered without objection.  See State v. Good, 308 S.C.
308, 311, 417 S.E.2d 640, 642 (Ct. App. 1992).  Here, the first police officer
testified she believed her conversation with the elderly woman was included in
the report on the robbery. Additionally, a second police officer testified,
without objection, that he received a report in which Rosemond was identified
as the primary suspect in the robbery.  Moreover, the admission of the statement
was harmless because it could not have reasonably affected the outcome of the trial.  See State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985). 
There was ample evidence from which the jury could have found Rosemond guilty. 
The victim identified Rosemond without hesitation in the photographic lineup
and at trial.  Further, the second police officer testified Rosemond's voice
matched a description of the robber's voice, and Rosemond lived at the
residence where the robbery occurred.  Accordingly, the trial court did not
commit reversible error in admitting the hearsay statement.       

AFFIRMED.

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

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