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.

Donna Marie Buie, Appellant.

Appeal From Darlington County
J. Michael Baxley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-193
Heard February 28, 2012 – File March 21, 2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellant, Donna Marie Buie, was indicted for and convicted of two counts of unlawful conduct toward a child.  The trial court sentenced Buie to ten years imprisonment, concurrent, on each charge.  Buie appeals, asserting error in (1) the trial court's qualification of a forensic interviewer as an expert and (2) the admission of a recording of a forensic interview.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  ISSUE I:  State v. Douglas, 380 S.C. 499, 502-03, 671 S.E.2d 606, 608-09 (2009) (holding even where testimony given by forensic interviewer was not required to be presented by an expert witness, appellant suffered no prejudice either as a result of forensic interviewer's testimony or by her qualification as an expert); State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438, 444, 710 S.E.2d 55, 58 (2011) (holding unless an objection is made at the time evidence is offered, and with sufficient specificity to inform the trial court of the point being urged by the objector, the issue is not preserved for review); State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620 S.E.2d 737, 741 (2005) (finding an argument advanced on appeal but not raised and ruled on below was not preserved for review); ISSUE II:  State v. Russell, 383 S.C. 447,450-51, 679 S.E.2d 542, 543-44 (Ct. App. 2009) (holding where appellant asserted error in admission of a videotape of an interview of a child sexual abuse victim pursuant to section 17-23-175 of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2011) because the statements contained in the tape constituted a prior consistent statement that improperly bolstered the child's testimony, the admission was proper, notwithstanding the fact that "admission of the videotape would likely [have been] error in absence of the statute," because our legislature has made specific allowance for these out-of-court statements by child victims and the Rules of Evidence expressly acknowledge the superiority of statutes in such cases).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and HUFF and SHORT, JJ., concur.