Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2008-MO-014 - Broach v. State

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

William Broach, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.


ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI


Appeal From Richland County
 Alison Renee Lee, Circuit Court Judge


Memorandum Opinion No. 2008-MO-014
Submitted February 21, 2008 – Filed March 10, 2008  


AFFIRMED


Tommy Arthur Thomas, Tricia A. Blanchette, both of Tommy A. Thomas, PC, of Irmo, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott; and Assistant Attorney General Brian T. Petrano, all of Columbia, for Respondent.


PER CURIAM:  We granted William Broach a belated direct appeal of his convictions and sentences for four counts of criminal sexual conduct with a minor, first degree, and one count of criminal sexual conduct with a minor, second degree.  He argues the trial court erred by:  (1) allowing the State to introduce his prior conviction for committing a lewd act on a minor during the cross-examination of his employer; and (2) relying on the Rape Shield statute in refusing to admit evidence that one of the victims was sexually abused by her stepfather.  

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issue 1:  State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) (noting that an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is harmless where guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be reached); Issue 2:  S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-659.1(1) (2003) (providing that specific instances of a victim’s own sexual conduct is not admissible in criminal sexual conduct prosecutions); State v. Grovenstein, 340 S.C. 210, 219, 530 S.E.2d 406, 411 (Ct. App. 2000) (providing that evidence of a child witness’s prior sexual experience is “relevant to demonstrate that the defendant is not necessarily the source of the victim’s” knowledge of sexual matters).

AFFIRMED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, PLEICONES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.