State v. Gregory

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.

Lonnie Wayne Gregory, Appellant.

Appeal From Lancaster County

 Brooks P. Goldsmith, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-222

Heard January 10, 2012 – Filed April 11,
2012

AFFIRMED

Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John
McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney
General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Douglas A.
Barfield, Jr., of Lancaster, for Respondent.

FEW, C.J.: Lonnie Wayne Gregory appeals his
conviction for second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.  He argues the
trial court erred in admitting expert testimony from a forensic interviewer
because it improperly bolstered the victim's credibility.  We find Gregory's
arguments unpreserved and without merit and affirm his conviction.

At trial, Gregory
objected when the State offered a forensic interviewer as an expert witness.  He
argued the interviewer should not be allowed to testify as an expert and, even
if she were allowed to testify, she should not be allowed to testify about the
victim's credibility.  The judge ruled against Gregory as to his first argument
by qualifying the interviewer as an expert witness.  However, the judge ruled
in favor of Gregory as to his second argument by ruling that the interviewer
could not testify as to whether she believed the victim.  The interviewer's
testimony Gregory complains about on appeal relates to the victim's
credibility.  See, e.g., State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473, 480,
716 S.E.2d 91, 94 (2011) ("There is no other way to interpret the language
used . . . other than to mean the forensic interviewer believed the children
were being truthful."); State v. McKerley, Op. No. 4957 (S.C. Ct.
App. filed March 28, 2012) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 11 at 41).  The trial court
ruled it would exclude such testimony, but Gregory failed to object to the
testimony when it was offered into evidence.  Therefore, his argument is not
preserved.  State v. Baker, 390 S.C. 56, 65, 700 S.E.2d 440, 444 (Ct.
App. 2010) (stating an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial
court to be preserved for review), cert. granted, (Nov. 17, 2011).

Gregory also contends
the court erred in allowing the interviewer to testify as an expert based
solely on State v. Douglas, 380 S.C. 499, 671 S.E.2d 606 (2009).  We
disagree and find, as in Douglas, that the decision to allow the
interviewer to testify as an expert did not prejudice Gregory.  380 S.C. at 503,
671 S.E.2d at 608-09 ("Douglas suffered no prejudice . . . by her qualification
as an expert."); 380 S.C. at 503, 671 S.E.2d at 609 ("The fact that [the
interviewer] was qualified as an expert did not require the jury to accord her
testimony any greater weight than that given to any other witness."). 

The conviction is AFFIRMED.

THOMAS and
KONDUROS, JJ., concur.