first trial that prompted the grant of a new trial. I. Improper Bolstering and Vouching In this case, there was a three-year delay in disclosure from the time the victim was first allegedly abused to the time of disclosing the abuse. On cross-examination, Smith’s counsel asked Tod Lynch-Stanley, the State’s forensic interviewer, whether a three-year delay in disclosure would be considered a short or long delay in disclosure. Lynch-Stanley responded, “That would be a fairly long delayed discl as no physical evidence presented, finding the victims’ credibility was the most critical determination of the case, and holding the error in the admission of evidence that vouched for the victims’ veracity was not harmless); see also State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 358, 737 S.E.2d 490, 499 (2013) (<HOLDING>); State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 559, 732
recognizing that an advisory opinion is one that offers an opinion on a moot issue holding that an insurer had conclusively established a reasonable basis for denying a claim when it relied on an experts opinion even though another expert had expressed a conflicting opinion holding that an experts opinion must be based on facts in evidence or within his or her knowledge and that the admission of an experts opinion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion holding that the plaintiffs experts were not qualified to offer a medical opinion as to the cause of death because they are not physicians nor otherwise properly qualified to offer a medical opinion holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others