20-UP-020 - The State v. Massey ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 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.
    Timiya Rashad Massey, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2017-002348
    Appeal From Greenville County
    Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge,
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-020
    Submitted January 1, 2020 – Filed January 29, 2020
    AFFIRMED
    Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
    Columbia, for Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney
    General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy
    Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant
    Attorney General Samuel E. Bailey, all of Columbia, for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Timiya Massey appeals his convictions for murder, attempted
    murder, first degree burglary, kidnapping, attempted armed robbery, and
    possession of a weapon during a violent crime. On appeal, Massey argues the trial
    court erred in refusing to allow him to question an alleged accomplice regarding
    his potential sentencing exposure. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR
    and the following authorities: State v. Mizzell, 
    349 S.C. 326
    , 331, 
    563 S.E.2d 315
    ,
    317 (2002) ("The trial [court] retains discretion to impose reasonable limits on the
    scope of cross-examination."); 
    id.
     ("Before a trial [court] may limit a criminal
    defendant's right to engage in cross-examination to show bias on the part of the
    witness, the record must clearly show the cross-examination is inappropriate.");
    State v. Gracely, 
    399 S.C. 363
    , 371, 
    731 S.E.2d 880
    , 884 (2012) ("[The appellate
    court] will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of
    cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible
    bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion.").
    AFFIRMED. 1
    THOMAS, GEATHERS, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2020-UP-020

Filed Date: 1/29/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024