THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.� IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
v.
Antoine Miller, Appellant.
Appeal From Richland County
�J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-194
Submitted April 1, 2011 � Filed April 28,
2011���
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., and Solicitor Dan Johnson, all of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: �Antoine Miller appeals his conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor.�� Miller contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a videotaped interview of the minor victim pursuant to section 17-23-175 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2010).� Miller argues the videotape constituted hearsay, bolstering, and a denial of his rights to both confrontation and a fair trial.� Miller also argues the trial court erred in failing to make a specific finding of the need for the videotape. �We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: S.C. Code Ann. � 17-23-175(A) ("In a general sessions court proceeding . . . an out-of-court statement of a child is admissible if: (1) the statement was given in response to questioning conducted during an investigative interview of the child; (2) an audio and visual recording of the statement is preserved on film, videotape, or other electronic means . . . ; (3) the child testifies at the proceeding and is subject to cross-examination on the elements of the offense and the making of the out-of-court statement; and (4) the court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury, that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement provides particularized guarantees of trustworthiness."); State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial [court], whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529 S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary support.").�
AFFIRMED.
HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.