State v. Odom ( 2015 )


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.
    Maurice Anthony Odom, Appellant.
    Appellate Case No. 2014-001340
    Appeal From Laurens County
    Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge
    Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-561
    Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed December 23, 2015
    AFFIRMED
    Appellate Defender Lara M. Caudy, of Columbia, for
    Appellant.
    Attorney General Alan Wilson and Assistant Attorney
    General Mark R. Farthing, both of Columbia; and
    Solicitor David M. Stumbo, of Greenwood, for
    Respondent.
    PER CURIAM: Maurice Anthony Odom appeals his convictions for second-
    degree burglary, grand larceny, and criminal conspiracy, arguing the trial court
    erred in (1) qualifying Agent Reid Creswell as an expert witness in K-9 handling
    for the purpose of tracking human scent because Agent Creswell did not have the
    requisite knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to be qualified as an
    expert witness and (2) admitting dog tracking evidence because the State failed to
    show the dog used to track human scent had by experience been found to be
    reliable. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
    authorities:
    1. As to whether the trial court erred in qualifying Agent Creswell as an expert in
    K-9 handling for the purpose of tracking human scent: State v. Price, 
    368 S.C. 494
    , 498, 
    629 S.E.2d 363
    , 365 (2006) ("The decision to admit or exclude testimony
    from an expert witness rests within the trial court's sound discretion."); 
    id.
     ("The
    trial court's decision to admit expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal
    absent an abuse of discretion."); 
    id.
     ("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. White, 
    382 S.C. 265
    , 272, 
    676 S.E.2d 684
    , 687
    (2009) ("[A] sufficient foundation for the admission of dog tracking evidence is
    established if (1) the evidence shows the dog handler satisfies the qualifications of
    an expert under Rule 702[, SCRE]; (2) the evidence shows the dog is of a breed
    characterized by an acute power of scent; (3) the dog has been trained to follow a
    trail by scent; (4) by experience the dog is found to be reliable; (5) the dog was
    placed on the trail where the suspect was known to have been within a reasonable
    time; and (6) the trail was not otherwise contaminated."); id. at 270, 
    676 S.E.2d at 686
     ("All expert testimony must satisfy the Rule 702 criteria, and that includes the
    trial court's gatekeeping function in ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets
    a reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration."); Rule 702, SCRE ("If
    scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to
    understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an
    expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto
    in the form of an opinion or otherwise."); White, 
    382 S.C. at 274
    , 
    676 S.E.2d at 689
     ("In the discharge of its gatekeeping role, a trial court must assess the
    threshold foundational requirements of qualifications and reliability and further
    find that the proposed evidence will assist the trier of fact."); State v. Henry, 
    329 S.C. 266
    , 274, 
    495 S.E.2d 463
    , 466 (1997) ("The party offering the expert has the
    burden of showing the witness possesses the necessary learning, skill, or practical
    experience to enable the witness to give opinion testimony."); id. at 274, 
    495 S.E.2d at 467
     ("Generally, however, defects in the amount and quality of the
    expert's education or experience go to the weight to be accorded the expert's
    testimony and not to its admissibility.").
    1
    We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
    2. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting dog tracking evidence because
    the State failed to show the dog used to track human scent had by experience been
    found to be reliable: State v. Nichols, 
    325 S.C. 111
    , 120, 
    481 S.E.2d 118
    , 123
    (1997) ("An issue may not be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have
    been raised to the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review."); State v. Hicks,
    
    330 S.C. 207
    , 217, 
    499 S.E.2d 209
    , 214 (1998) ("A contemporaneous objection is
    necessary to preserve errors for direct appellate review. . . ."); State v. Johnson,
    
    363 S.C. 53
    , 58, 
    609 S.E.2d 520
    , 523 (2005) ("The objection should be addressed
    to the trial court in a sufficiently specific manner that brings attention to the exact
    error."); id. at 58-59, 
    609 S.E.2d at 523
     ("If a party fails to properly object, the
    party is procedurally barred from raising the issue on appeal.").
    AFFIRMED.
    FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2015-UP-561

Filed Date: 12/23/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024