Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-102 - State v. Oo

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.

Theodore Kyin Oo, Appellant.


Appeal From Horry County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.   2011-UP-102
Submitted March 1, 2011 – Filed March 15, 2011


AFFIRMED


Bobby G. Frederick, of Myrtle Beach, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Christina Catoe, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  In 2009, Theodore Kyin Oo was convicted of lewd act upon a minor and sentenced to twelve years in prison.  Oo appeals, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a video recording of a doctor interviewing the five-year old victim, in violation of (1) section 17-23-175 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010), and (2) the Confrontation Clause.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

As to issue (1): State v. Dunlap, 346 S.C. 312, 325-26, 550 S.E.2d 889, 896-97 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A party cannot complain of prejudice from the admission of evidence if he opened the door to its admission."); State v. Beam, 336 S.C. 45, 52, 518 S.E.2d 297, 301 (Ct. App. 1999) ("[W]hen 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 have been incompetent or irrelevant had it been offered initially.").  

As to issue (2): Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004) ("[W]hen the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior . . . statements.") (emphasis added); State v. Stoke, 381 S.C. 390, 399, 673 S.E.2d 434, 438 (2009).

AFFIRMED.[1]

FEW, C.J., THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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