Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-006 - State v. Gallman

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.

Dominic Gallman, Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-006
Submitted October 1, 2010 – Filed January 20, 2011


AFFIRMED


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

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenda, Assistant Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Solicitor W. Barney Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Dominic Gallman appeals his convictions for three counts of murder, burglary in the first degree, armed robbery, and kidnapping.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Issue 1:  State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 13, 515 S.E.2d 508, 514 (1999) (finding a trial court should first exhaust other methods to cure possible prejudice before aborting a trial); State v. Walker, 366 S.C. 643, 658, 623 S.E.2d 122, 129 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating a curative instruction is usually deemed to have cured any alleged error).  Issue 2: State v. Allen, 269 S.C. 233, 242, 237 S.E.2d 64, 68 (1977) (holding overwhelming proof of guilt rendered harmless any error in the admission of the evidence in question).  Issue 3: Rule 613(b), SCRE (providing for admission of a prior inconsistent statement if the witness does not admit making the statement);   State v. Carmack, 388 S.C. 190, 201, 694 S.E.2d 224, 229-30 (Ct. App. 2010) (finding where the witness has responded with anything less than an unequivocal admission, trial courts are granted wide latitude to allow extrinsic evidence proving the statement).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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