host factors in South Carolina

2017“Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors.” Id. (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)).

2017“Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors.” Id. (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)).

2012Confrontation Clause: State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 285 , 676 S.E.2d 690, 694 (2009) ("Violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to a harmless error analysis."); State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 318-19 (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' 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-exa

2012Confrontation Clause: State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 285 , 676 S.E.2d 690, 694 (2009) ("Violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to a harmless error analysis."); State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 318-19 (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' 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-exa

2009State v. Graham, 314 S.C. 383, 386 , 444 S.E.2d 525, 527 (1994) (noting that a harmless error analysis depends upon a host of factors, one of which is whether the excluded evidence was cumulative).

2009State v. Graham, 314 S.C. 383, 386 , 444 S.E.2d 525, 527 (1994) (noting that a harmless error analysis depends upon a host of factors, one of which is whether the excluded evidence was cumulative).

2017“Whether such an error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors.” Id. (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986)).

2016Although the family court's failure to permit cross-examination was error, we find this error was harmless because the children's testimony that they lived with Mother at the Walnut Street home (and not on Spruce Street) was merely cumulative to the testimony of other witnesses who testified as to the family's place of residence and living conditions.1 See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680 (1986) (whether Confrontation Clause error is harmless in a particular case depends upon a host of factors "including the importance of the witness' testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative,

2012Hearsay: State v. Vick, 384 S.C. 189, 199 , 682 S.E.2d 275, 280 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is well settled that evidence is not hearsay unless offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 468 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."). 5.

2012Hearsay: State v. Vick, 384 S.C. 189, 199 , 682 S.E.2d 275, 280 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is well settled that evidence is not hearsay unless offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 468 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."). 5.

2012Hearsay: State v. Vick, 384 S.C. 189, 199 , 682 S.E.2d 275, 280 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is well settled that evidence is not hearsay unless offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 468 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."). 5.

2012Hearsay: State v. Vick, 384 S.C. 189, 199 , 682 S.E.2d 275, 280 (Ct. App. 2009) ("It is well settled that evidence is not hearsay unless offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); State v. Adkins, 353 S.C. 312, 326 , 577 S.E.2d 460, 468 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."). 5.

2012Confrontation Clause: State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 285 , 676 S.E.2d 690, 694 (2009) ("Violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to a harmless error analysis."); State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 318-19 (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' 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-exa

2012Confrontation Clause: State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 285 , 676 S.E.2d 690, 694 (2009) ("Violations of the Confrontation Clause are subject to a harmless error analysis."); State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 333 , 563 S.E.2d 315, 318-19 (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' 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-exa

2011As 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 m

2011As 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 m

2002Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. at 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d at 686 ; see State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478 , 445 S.E.2d 633 (1994) (applying Van Arsdall factors); see also State v. Graham, supra, (the Van Arsdall factors are not exhaustive). *334 “Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

2002Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 , 106 S.Ct. at 1438 , 89 L.Ed.2d at 686 ; see State v. Clark, 315 S.C. 478 , 445 S.E.2d 633 (1994) (applying Van Arsdall factors); see also State v. Graham, supra, (the Van Arsdall factors are not exhaustive). *334 “Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” means the reviewing court can conclude the error did not contribute to the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.