State v. Busse

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.

Craig Carl Busse, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000201

Appeal From Newberry County
Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-307
Submitted October 1, 2020 – Filed November 12, 2020

AFFIRMED

James Ross Snell, Jr. and Vicki D Koutsogiannis, both of
Law Office Of James R. Snell, Jr., LLC, of Lexington,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch, and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor David Matthew Stumbo, of
Greenwood, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Craig Carl Busse appeals from his sentence for criminal sexual
conduct with a minor, second degree, arguing the trial court erred in (1) overruling
Busse's objection when the solicitor argued during closing arguments that he found
the victim's testimony to be compelling, and (2) applying the South Carolina Rape
Shield Statute when the court declined to allow Busse to use evidence found on the
victim's cell phone to show motive. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR,
and the following authorities: Tappeiner v. State, 416 S.C. 239, 250, 785 S.E.2d
471, 477 (2016) ("[S]olicitors must confine their closing remarks to the record and
the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom."); id. (holding the trial
court has wide discretion in ruling on the appropriateness of a closing argument);
State v. Copeland, 321 S.C. 318, 324, 468 S.E.2d 620, 624 (1996) ("The trial
court's discretion will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion
amounting to an error of law that prejudices the defendant."); Humphries v. State,
351 S.C. 362, 373, 570 S.E.2d 160, 166 (2002) ("Improper comments do not
automatically require reversal if they are not prejudicial to the defendant, and the
appellant has the burden of proving he did not receive a fair trial because of the
alleged improper argument."); State v. Sinclair, 275 S.C. 608, 610, 274 S.E.2d 411,
412 (1981) (finding when "the appellant obtained the only relief he sought, this
court has no issue to decide"); State v. Parris, 387 S.C. 460, 465, 692 S.E.2d 207,
209 (Ct. App. 2010) ("When the defendant receives the relief requested from the
trial court, there is no issue for the appellate court to decide.").

AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, HILL, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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