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,
Anthony Acanfora, Appellant.
Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-512
Heard November 16, 2011 – Filed November 28, 2011
Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson and Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, both of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Anthony Acanfora appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary. He argues the trial court erred in two respects: (1) denying his motions for a directed verdict and new trial and (2) prohibiting him from questioning a witness pursuant to the Confrontation Clause and Rule 608(c), SCRE, about the State's dismissal of warrants issued against the witness for the same charges issued against Acanfora. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to the first issue: S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-312(B)(3) (2003) ("A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree if the person enters a dwelling without consent and with intent to commit a crime therein, and . . . [t]he entering or remaining occurs in the nighttime."); State v. Thompson, 374 S.C. 257, 262, 647 S.E.2d 702, 705 (Ct. App. 2007) ("Mere presence and prior knowledge that a crime was going to be committed, without more, is insufficient to constitute guilt. However, presence at the scene of a crime by pre-arrangement to aid, encourage, or abet in the perpetration of the crime constitutes guilt as a [principal]." (alteration in quoted sentence) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 263-64, 647 S.E.2d at 705-06 (holding the record contained sufficient evidence the defendant aided another in the commission of a burglary).
2. As to the second issue: State v. Page, 378 S.C. 476, 485, 663 S.E.2d 357, 361 (Ct. App. 2008) (holding that even if the trial court erred, the alleged error "was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"); see also State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333, 563 S.E.2d 315, 318 (2002) ("Whether an error is harmless depends on the particular facts of each case and upon a host of factors including: the importance of the witness'[s] testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and of course the overall strength of the prosecution's case.").
FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.