Caldwell’s motion for directed verdict. Accordingly, Caldwell’s convictions are AFFIRMED. WILLIAMS, J., concurs. KITTREDGE, J., concurs in result. KITTREDGE, J.: I concur in result but write separately as I believe it was error to admit the victims’ testimony concerning how they felt when Caldwell stared at their genitals. As the defense points out, the presence or absence of a victim’s “feelings” is irrelevant under the “peeping tom statute” because a victim’s emotional response has no bearing on any element of the crime. Indeed, in many such prosecutions, the victim is unaware of the peeping tom’s presence and the invasion of privacy. I concur in result as this error was harmless due to the overwhelming evidence of guilt. State v. Garver, 304 S.C. 220, 222, 403 S.E.2d 631, 632 (1991) (<HOLDING>). 1 . We decide this case without oral argument
holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that even if the statements were improperly admitted any error was harmless since there was overwhelming evidence connecting the defendant to the conspiracy holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming and the error is insignificant by comparison holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt