State v. Massey ( 2014 )


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.
    Clayton L. Massey, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2013-000657
    Appeal From York County
    John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-455
    Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
    Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
    Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
    for Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities: State v. Moore, 
    343 S.C. 282
    , 288, 
    540 S.E.2d 445
    , 448 (2000)
    ("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial court's
    discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the
    commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Price, 
    368 S.C. 494
    , 498, 
    629 S.E.2d 363
    , 365 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's
    ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary
    support."); State v. Traylor, 
    360 S.C. 74
    , 81, 
    600 S.E.2d 523
    , 526-27 (2004) ("The
    United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the
    admissibility of an out-of-court identification. First, a court must ascertain whether
    the identification process was unduly suggestive. The court must next decide
    whether the out-of-court identification was nevertheless so reliable that no
    substantial likelihood of misidentification existed." (internal citation omitted));
    State v. Turner, 
    373 S.C. 121
    , 127, 
    644 S.E.2d 693
    , 696 (2007) ("Even assuming
    an identification procedure is suggestive, it need not be excluded so long as, under
    all the circumstances, the identification was reliable notwithstanding the
    suggestiveness."); Neil v. Biggers, 
    409 U.S. 188
    , 196-97 (1972) ("[C]onvictions
    based on eye-witness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by
    photograph will be set aside on [the] ground [of suggestiveness] only if the
    photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give
    rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." (citation and
    internal quotation marks omitted)).
    AFFIRMED.1
    FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2014-UP-455

Filed Date: 12/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024