State v. Gethers

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.

Corey Gethers, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-204886

Appeal From Charleston County
Deadra L. Jefferson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-410
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 6, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens and Appellate
Defender Benjamin John Tripp, both of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Cory Gethers appeals his conviction of failure to stop for a blue
light, arguing the trial court erred by (1) permitting the State to impeach him using
a document never entered into evidence, and (2) preventing him from questioning
the State's only witness about the possibility of facing a civil lawsuit by Gethers to
show bias. We affirm.1

1. Gethers argues the trial court erred by permitting the State to impeach him
using a document never entered into evidence. We find the State's use of the
document during cross-examination was not improper. See State v. Robinson, 305
S.C. 469, 474, 409 S.E.2d 404, 408 (1991) ("[Because] appellant opened the door
to this evidence, he cannot complain of prejudice from its admission."). Gethers
next argues the State's reference to the document during closing arguments was
improper. We find this issue unpreserved for appellate review. See State v.
Wilson, 389 S.C. 579, 583, 698 S.E.2d 862, 864 (Ct. App. 2010) ("When an
objecting party is sustained, the trial court has rendered a favorable ruling, and
therefore, it becomes necessary that the sustained party move to cure, or move for
a mistrial if such a cure is insufficient, in order to create an appealable issue.").
Finally, Gethers argues the jury's request for the document during deliberations
was improper. We find this issue is also unpreserved. See State v. Dunbar, 356
S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("In order for an issue to be preserved
for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial
[court].").

2. Gethers argues the trial court erred by limiting his cross-examination of the
State's witness to show bias. We disagree. See State v. Jenkins, 322 S.C. 360, 364,
474 S.E.2d 812, 814 (Ct. App. 1996) ("The Confrontation Clause does not prevent
a trial [court] from imposing any limits on defense counsel's inquiry into the
potential bias of a prosecution witness. On the contrary, trial [courts] may impose
reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other
things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, witness's safety, or
interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant."); State v. McFarlane,
279 S.C. 327, 330-31, 306 S.E.2d 611, 613 (1983) (noting although a contemplated
lawsuit may be relevant to show a witness's bias, the record must reflect whether or
not litigation was contemplated).

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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