Opinion ID: 1297849
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: reply testimony

Text: Appellant next contends that it was error to admit reply testimony by the State. On direct and cross-examination, Appellant denied the sexual assaults and the use and sale of marijuana. In reply, the State recalled Appellant's daughters, who testified that Appellant: (1) had sexually assaulted them; (2) used and sold marijuana; and (3) forced them to smoke marijuana prior to his attacks upon them. We have held that where bad acts have not resulted in a conviction, guilty plea, indictment or arrest, the State's use of such evidence is limited. State v. Gore , S.C. 322 S.E. (2d) 12 (1984). However, where guilt is proven by competent evidence and no rational conclusion can be reached other than the accused's guilt, a conviction will not be set aside because of insubstantial errors not affecting the result. State v. Key , 256 S.C. 90, 180 S.E. (2d) 888 (1971). Having held the testimony proving Appellant's guilt competent, any prejudice resulting from the State's reply was harmless error. State v. Key, supra .