State v. Bright ( 2015 )

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.
Tyrik Gerard Bright, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001354
Appeal From Aiken County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-222
Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015
AFFIRMED
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mark Reynolds Farthing, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor James Strom Thurmond, Jr., of
Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Tyrik Gerard Bright appeals his conviction and sentence to
twelve-years' imprisonment for second-degree burglary. On appeal, Bright argues
the trial court erred in allowing the testimonies of Mary Wolf and Detective Keith
Glover into evidence. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:
1. As to Wolf's testimony: State v. Oglesby, 384 S.C. 289, 292, 681 S.E.2d 620,
622 (Ct. App. 2009) ("Generally, the conduct of a criminal trial is left largely to the
sound discretion of the trial court, and this court will not interfere unless it clearly
appears the rights of the complaining party were abused or prejudiced in some
way."); id. ("As such, an appellate court sits to review errors of law only, and we
are bound by the trial court's factual determinations unless they are clearly
erroneous."); id. at 293, 681 S.E.2d at 622 ("The admission of evidence is within
the sound discretion of the trial court."); id. ("To constitute an abuse of discretion,
the conclusions of the trial court must lack evidentiary support or be controlled by
an error of law."); State v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008)
("Under Rule 404(b), SCRE, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally
not admissible to prove the defendant's guilt for the crime charged."); id. ("To be
admissible, the bad act must logically relate to the crime with which the defendant
has been charged. If the defendant was not convicted of the prior crime, evidence
of the prior bad act must be clear and convincing."); id. ("Even if prior bad act
evidence is clear and convincing and falls within an exception, it must be excluded
if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
to the defendant."); id. at 24, 664 S.E.2d at 483 ("The determination of the
prejudicial effect of the evidence must be based on the entire record and the result
will generally turn on the facts of each case."); State v. Varvil, 338 S.C. 335, 339,
526 S.E.2d 248, 250 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating constitutional issues must be raised to
and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appeal).
2. As to Detective Glover's testimony: State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580
S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A trial [court's] decision regarding the
comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed
only in exceptional circumstances."); id. ("We review a trial court's decision
regarding Rule 403, [SCRE,] pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are
obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment."); id. ("All relevant
evidence is admissible."); id. ("Under Rule 401, SCRE, evidence is relevant if it
has a direct bearing upon and tends to establish or make more or less probable the
matter in controversy."); State v. Cooley, 342 S.C. 63, 69, 536 S.E.2d 666, 669
(2000) ("However, although evidence is relevant, it should be excluded where the
danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value."); State v.
Dickerson, 341 S.C. 391, 400, 535 S.E.2d 119, 123 (2000) ("Unfair prejudice
means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis."); State v.
Funderburke, 251 S.C. 536, 540, 164 S.E.2d 309, 311 (1968) ("Cumulative
evidence has repeatedly been defined to be additional evidence of the same kind to
the same point."); Varvil, 338 S.C. at 339, 526 S.E.2d at 250 (stating constitutional
issues must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appeal).
AFFIRMED.1
THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.