State v. Sosebee, 22236

Decision Date10 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 22236,22236
Citation284 S.C. 411,326 S.E.2d 654
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Frank Victor SOSEBEE, Appellant. . Heard

Ralph J. Wilson, Public Defender, Conway, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and State's Atty. Agnes Dale Moore, Columbia, and Sol. James O. Dunn, Conway, for respondent.

LITTLEJOHN, Chief Judge:

The defendant-appellant, Frank Victor Sosebee, was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and second degree criminal sexual conduct. Sosebee appeals submitting that the trial judge improperly commented on the evidence and testimony in the presence of the jury. We affirm.

The victim, a non-commissioned Air Force officer stationed at Myrtle Beach, testified that on the night of March 23, 1983, Sosebee telephoned her and tricked her into meeting him at a local high school parking lot. She denied knowing him prior to this incident. She testified that through misrepresentations Sosebee persuaded her to drive him to a secluded spot where he coerced her into sexual intercourse against her will by use of force and threats.

Sosebee testified that he and the victim had been previously acquainted and had planned to meet at the parking lot. He further testified that the sexual relations developed with her consent.

Clearly if the jury had believed Sosebee, he would have been found not guilty. The jury obviously believed the victim because of the resulting convictions.

Through this appeal, Sosebee argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial judge made prejudicial comments in the presence of the jury affecting the credibility of witnesses. He further argues that the judge erred in erroneously quoting the testimony of the victim. 1

No objection was made to either of these alleged errors nor was a motion for a new trial made such that the judge might have an opportunity to correct a mistake if there be such. If counsel perceived any prejudice at the trial, a motion for a mistrial should have been contemporaneously made. No objection having been interposed, the matter may not now be pursued on appeal. State v. Anderson, 181 S.C. 527, 188 S.E. 186 (1936).

The final issue concerns an allegation of error in admitting hearsay testimony by witnesses concerning what the victim told them outside the defendant's presence. Although it is not clear from Sosebee's brief what testimony is being challenged, we deduce that he is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Lyles
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 6, 2008 ruling on the relevancy of evidence. State v. Alexander, 303 S.C. 377, 380, 401 S.E.2d 146, 148 (1991); State v. Sosebee, 284 S.C. 411, 413, 326 S.E.2d 654, 656 (1985); State v. Jeffcoat, 279 S.C. 167, 170, 303 S.E.2d 855, 857 (1983); Hamilton, 344 S.C. at 353, 543 S.E.2d at 591; see Sta......
  • State v. Kornahrens, 22618
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1986
    ...ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his rulings will not be disturbed absent a showing of probable prejudice. State v. Sosebee, 284 S.C. 411, 326 S.E.2d 654 (1985). The determination of the relevancy and materiality of a photograph is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.......
  • State v. Bell
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1987 the jury his opinion on the credibility of the witnesses, the weight of the evidence, or the guilt of the accused. State v. Sosebee, 284 S.C. 411, 326 S.E.2d 654 (1985). However, remarks made by a trial judge in ruling on the admissibility of evidence or ruling on other matters during th......
  • State v. White
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • December 21, 2006
    ...have consistently held that a trial court should only be reversed when an error is prejudicial and not harmless. See State v. Sosebee, 284 S.C. 411, 326 S.E.2d 654 (1985) (probable prejudice must be shown); Watts v. Bell Oil Co., 266 S.C. 61, 221 S.E.2d 529 (1976) (prejudice must be "Whethe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT