Court Opinion

ID: 9850273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:54:22.678479+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:34.199181
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING
GOOLSBY, J.:
The appellant William Max Nicholson petitions this court for a rehearing. After careful consideration of the petition, the court concludes there is no basis for granting a rehearing.
The court acknowledges it did not give a full treatment to Nicholson’s argument that the trial judge erred in limiting *582defense counsel’s cross-examination of his accuser about the accuser’s sexual abuse history. We take this opportunity to advise that, after examination of the record citations provided in Nicholson’s brief as well as our own review of the transcript, we are unable to ascertain that the issue of the scope of cross-examination had been raised to and ruled on by the trial judge or that the proposed cross-examination had been proffered at trial. See Rules 208(b)(4) and 211(b)(1), SCACR (requiring briefs to provide references to where relevant objections and rulings occurred in the transcript); State v. Hicks, 380 S.C. 207, 216, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1998) (stating that to be preserved for appeal, an issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial judge); Baber v. Greenville County, 327 S.C. 31, 41, 488 S.E.2d 314, 319 (1997) (“Absent a proffer, it is impossible for this Court to determine the effect of the excluded testimony.”); McKissick v. J.F. Cleckley & Co., 325 S.C. 327, 344-45, 479 S.E.2d 67, 76 (Ct.App.1996) (noting the appellant failed to “point to specific objections and rulings” as required by the South Carolina Appellate Court Rules, thus leaving the court to “ ‘grope in the dark’ concerning the specific allegations of error”) (quoting Connolly v. People’s Life Ins. Co. of S.C., 299 S.C. 348, 352, 384 S.E.2d 738, 740 (1989)). We therefore conclude that, although the argument concerning the scope of the cross-examination of Nicholson’s accuser may have been overlooked in the prior opinion, the omission did not concern a material fact or point of law so as to warrant rehearing the case.
It is therefore ordered the petition for rehearing is denied.
REHEARING DENIED.
HUFF and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.