Court Opinion

ID: 9578678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:47:22.692021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:12.988986
License: Public Domain

Moore, Justice:
I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the State’s appeal in this case but dissent from the reversal of Bryant’s remaining convictions.
I agree that a Solicitor may not attack a defendant’s veracity by pitting the defendant’s testimony against that of a State’s witness; such improper questioning is reversible error when the defendant is deprived of a fair and impartial trial as a result. State v. Brown, 297 S.C. 27, 374 S.E. (2d) 669 (1988). When viewed in context, however, I cannot agree that the effect of the Solicitor’s isolated inquiry was so egregious as to deprive Bryant of a fair and impartial trial in this case. The Solicitor immediately moved on with his questioning and did not attempt to use Bryant’s comment to any unfair advantage. Where there is strong evidence supporting a conviction, even when the defendant’s credibility is in question, the error is harmless where the conviction was clearly correct on the merits, the trial was fair, and no other verdict could reasonably have been returned on the evidence. Thrift v. State, 302 S.C. 535, 397 S.E. (2d) 523 (1990). I agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion on this issue and would affirm.
Charles W. Whetstone, Jr., Acting Associate Justice, concurs.