State v. Dustin G. Ready

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.

Dustin Geoffrey Ready, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000598

Appeal From Greenville County
Edward W. Miller, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-385
Submitted November 1, 2023 – Filed December 6, 2023

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor W. Walter Wilkins, III, of
Greenville, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Dustin Geoffrey Ready appeals his conviction for first-degree
criminal sexual conduct with a minor (CSCM) and sentence of thirty years'
imprisonment. On appeal, Ready argues the trial court abused its discretion by
refusing to ask a requested question during voir dire. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR.

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to ask Ready's
requested question because the question required potential jurors to determine if
they would believe a certain type of witness—here, a child—prior to the start of
trial. See State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 23, 596 S.E.2d 475, 479 (2004) ("The scope
of voir dire and the manner in which it is conducted are generally left to the sound
discretion of the trial court."); State v. McDonald, 343 S.C. 319, 325, 540 S.E.2d
464, 467 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is
based on an error of law."); State v. Coaxum, 410 S.C. 320, 327, 764 S.E.2d 242,
245 (2014) ("To protect both parties' right to an impartial jury, the trial court must
conduct voir dire of the prospective jurors to determinate whether the jurors are
aware of any bias or prejudice against a party, as well as to 'elicit such facts as will
enable [the parties] intelligently to exercise their right of peremptory challenge.'"
(quoting State v. Woods, 345 S.C. 583, 587, 550 S.E.2d 282, 284 (2001))); Wall v.
Keels, 331 S.C. 310, 318, 501 S.E.2d 754, 757 (Ct. App. 1998) ("[A]s a general
rule, the trial court is not required to ask all voir dire questions submitted by the
attorneys."); State v. Stanko, 376 S.C. 571, 576, 658 S.E.2d 94, 96 (2008) ("To
constitute reversible error, a limitation on questioning must render the trial
fundamentally unfair."); State v. Adams, 279 S.C. 228, 235, 306 S.E.2d 208, 212
(1983) (holding a voir dire question asking whether a juror would "believe a police
officer's testimony before that of a private citizen" impermissibly "call[ed] upon
the juror to make a determination in his own mind as to whether one class of
persons [wa]s more credible than another"), overruled on other grounds by State v.
Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991); id. ("A juror should not, prior to
trial, be required to assert which witnesses he will believe nor what type of witness
he will believe. This is true because a juror should believe those witnesses whose
credibility appeal to him after he has heard all of the testimony.").

AFFIRMED. 1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and HEWITT, and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

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