State v. Goss

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.

Darrell Goss, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

J. C. "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr.,
Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-214

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed May 17, 2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; and Solicitor
Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Darrell Goss appeals his convictions for
kidnapping, assault and battery with intent to kill, and armed robbery, arguing
the trial court erred in the following: (1) overruling Goss's objection to the
State's closing argument and (2) refusing Goss's request to impeach the victim
with the victim's pending charge of counterfeiting goods.  We affirm[1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 

1. As to whether the trial court erred in overruling Goss's
objection to the State's closing argument, we note preservation was
questionable but affirm on the merits:  State v. Patterson, 324 S.C. 5,
17, 482 S.E.2d 760, 766 (1997) "[A] trial [court] is vested with broad discretion
in dealing with the range of propriety of closing argument, and ordinarily his
rulings on such matters will not be disturbed."); id. ("[Appellate
courts] must review the argument in the context of the entire record."); id. ("The appellant has the burden of showing that any alleged error in
argument deprived him of a fair trial."); id. ("The relevant
question is whether the [State's] comments so infected the trial with
unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.").

2. As to whether the
trial court erred in refusing Goss's request to impeach the victim with the
victim's pending charge of counterfeiting goods:  Fields v. J. Haynes Waters
Builders, Inc., 376 S.C. 545, 557, 658 S.E.2d 80, 86 (2008) ("[T]o
warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the appealing
party must show both the error of the ruling and prejudice."); Morris
v. Tidewater Land & Timber, Inc., 388 S.C. 317, 331, 696 S.E.2d 599,
606 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding a trial court's error in excluding certain
testimony was harmless because the parties involved suffered no prejudice as a
result of the exclusion of the testimony  since the testimony did not touch
upon the critical issue in the case). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, KONDUROS,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur. 

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