Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-006 - The State v. Patrick Bryant

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.

Patrick Percival Bryant, Appellant.


Appeal From Georgetown County
Michael J. Baxley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-006
Submitted January 4, 2010 – Filed January 21, 2010   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Katherine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr. all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Patrick Percival Bryant was convicted of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor in the second degree and sentenced to life in prison without parole.  Bryant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in (1) allowing the State to question him about details regarding a prior conviction for criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature (CDVHAN) and (2) admitting into evidence his indictment for the CDVHAN charge.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following authorities:  ISSUE I:  State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 52, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct. App. 1999) (stating one may not complain about the admission of evidence where he opened the door to that evidence); State v. White, 361 S.C. 407, 415-16, 605 S.E.2d 540, 544 (2004) (noting evidence which may otherwise be inadmissible may be properly admitted when the door is opened to that evidence by the complaining party); Beam, 336 S.C. at 52, 518 S.E.2d at 301(holding when 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 be incompetent or irrelevant had it been offered initially); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 499, 629 S.E.2d 363, 366 (2006) (providing the admission of improper evidence is harmless where the evidence is merely cumulative to other evidence); State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 507, 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 (1993) (stating that any error in admission of evidence cumulative to other unobjected-to evidence is harmless); ISSUE II:  State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693-94 (2003) (holding, for an issue to be properly preserved for review, it must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court, and issues not so raised and ruled upon will not be considered on appeal; a party may not argue one ground at trial and another ground on appeal;  while a party need not use the exact name of a legal doctrine in order to preserve an argument, it must be clear that the argument has been presented on that ground).[1]

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, A.C.J., GEATHERS, J., and CURETON, A.J., concur.


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