State v. Reaves ( 2013 )

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.
Roosevelt Reaves, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2011-190786
Appeal From Richland County
Clifton Newman, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-422
Submitted October 1, 2013 – Filed November 20, 2013
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Roosevelt Reaves appeals his conviction of criminal sexual
conduct, arguing the trial court erred in admitting (1) graphic photographs because
the prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value and (2) expert testimony
outside the scope of the expert's qualifications. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting graphic photographs: State v.
Rosemond, 335 S.C. 593, 596, 518 S.E.2d 588, 589-90 (1999) ("The relevance,
materiality and admissibility of photographs are matters within the sound
discretion of the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of
an abuse of discretion."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice . . . ."); Rosemond, 335 S.C. at 597, 518 S.E.2d at 590 ("If the photograph
serves to corroborate testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit it.").
2. As to whether the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony: State v. Byers,
392 S.C. 438, 444, 710 S.E.2d 55, 58 (2011) ("For an objection to be preserved for
appellate review, the objection must be made at the time the evidence is presented,
and with sufficient specificity to inform the [trial court] of the point being urged by
the objector."(internal citations omitted)); State v. Commander, 396 S.C. 254, 262-
63, 721 S.E.2d 413, 417 (2011) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is a
matter within the trial court's sound discretion, and an appellate court may only
disturb a ruling admitting or excluding evidence upon a showing of a 'manifest
abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice.'" (quoting State v.
Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48 (2006))).
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.