State v. Oo

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.

Theodore Kyin
Oo, Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-102

Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 15,
2011

AFFIRMED

Bobby G. Frederick, of Myrtle Beach, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina Catoe, of Columbia, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In
2009, Theodore Kyin Oo was convicted of lewd act upon a minor and sentenced to
twelve years in prison.  Oo appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting
a video recording of a doctor interviewing the five-year old victim, in
violation of (1) section 17-23-175 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010), and
(2) the Confrontation Clause.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

As to issue (1): State v. Dunlap,
346 S.C. 312, 325-26, 550 S.E.2d 889, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A party
cannot complain of prejudice from the admission of evidence if he opened the
door to its admission."); State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 52, 518
S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[W]hen a party introduces evidence about
a particular matter, the other party is entitled to explain it or rebut it,
even if the latter evidence would have been incompetent or irrelevant had it
been offered initially.").  

As to issue (2): Crawford
v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004) ("[W]hen the
declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause
places no constraints at all on the use of his prior . . .
statements.") (emphasis added); State v. Stoke, 381 S.C. 390, 399,
673 S.E.2d 434, 438 (2009).

AFFIRMED.[1]

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

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