State v. Hunter ( 2014 )

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.
Troy Hunter, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-000227
Appeal From Florence County
D. Craig Brown, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-437
Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 3, 2014
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jennifer Ellis Roberts, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar Lewis Clements, of
Florence, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 220(c), SCACR ("The appellate court may affirm any ruling,
order, decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on
Appeal."); State v. Foster, 354 S.C. 614, 620-21, 582 S.E.2d 426, 429 (2003) ("The
admission or exclusion of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and
will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); id. at 621, 582
S.E.2d at 429 ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based
on an error of law."); State v. Burdette, 335 S.C. 34, 43-44, 515 S.E.2d 525, 530
(1999) ("Whether a statement is admissible under the excited utterance exception
to the hearsay rule depends on the circumstances of each case and the
determination is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court."); State v.
Sims, 348 S.C. 16, 21, 558 S.E.2d 518, 521 (2002) ("Three elements must be met
to find the statement to be an excited utterance. First, the statement must relate to
a startling event or condition. Second, the statement must have been made while
the declarant was under the stress of excitement. Third, the stress of excitement
must be caused by the startling event or condition."); id. at 21-22, 558 S.E.2d at
521 ("While the passage of time between the startling event and the statement is
one factor to consider, it is not the dispositive factor. Even statements after
extended periods of time can be considered an excited utterance as long as they
were made under continuing stress."); id. at 22, 558 S.E.2d at 521 ("Other factors
useful in determining whether a statement qualifies as an excited utterance include
the declarant's demeanor, the declarant's age, and the severity of the startling
event."); State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 127, 551 S.E.2d 240, 247 (2001) ("Even if
evidence is relevant, it may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id.("Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper
basis, such as an emotional one."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d
785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) ("We review a trial court's decision regarding Rule 403[,
SCRCP,] pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give
great deference to the trial court's judgment."); id. ("A trial [court's] decision
regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence
should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances.").
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF, SHORT, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.