State v. Moore

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.
Tyrone Moore, Appellant.

__________

Appeal From Berkeley County
R. Markley Dennis Jr., Circuit Court Judge

__________

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-344
Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed June 6, 2012
__________

AFFIRMED
__________

Eduardo K. Curry, of North Charleston, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tyrone Moore appeals his convictions of two counts
of lewd act on a minor, arguing the circuit court erred in limiting his cross-
examination of one witness and in qualifying another witness as an expert.
We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to whether the circuit court erred in limiting Moore's cross-
examination of one of the State's witnesses: State v. Sheppard, 391 S.C. 415,
420-21, 706 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2011) ("Our law is clear that a party must make a
contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the [circuit court] to
preserve an issue for appellate review."); State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189,
195, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (holding a defendant cannot complain on
appeal about the circuit court's limitation of cross-examination if the
defendant acquiesced to the limitation at trial).

2. As to whether the circuit court erred in qualifying one of the
State's witnesses as an expert: State v. Martin, 391 S.C. 508, 513, 706 S.E.2d
40, 42 (Ct. App. 2011) ("The qualification of a witness as an expert is within
the sound discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be reversed absent an
abuse of discretion."); State v. Henry, 329 S.C. 266, 273, 495 S.E.2d 463,
466 (Ct. App. 1997) (holding a circuit court does not abuse its discretion in
qualifying a witness as an expert "as long as the witness has acquired by
study or practical experience such knowledge of the subject matter of his
testimony as would enable him to give guidance and assistance to the jury in
resolving a factual issue which is beyond the scope of the jury's good
judgment and common knowledge"); id. at 274, 495 S.E.2d at 467 ("There is
no exact requirement concerning how knowledge or skill must be acquired.").

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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