State v. Phipps ( 2012 )

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.

Robert J. Phipps, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Spartanburg County
Roger L. Couch, Special Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-018
Heard December 7, 2011 – Filed January 25, 2012

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Phipps appeals his murder conviction and sentence.  He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss and in excluding testimony regarding an anonymous tip.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in denying Phipps's motion to dismiss: State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 538-39, 552 S.E.2d 300, 307 (2001) (requiring a defendant seeking dismissal based on loss of evidence prove either (1) the State destroyed the evidence in bad faith or (2) the evidence possessed an exculpatory value apparent before the evidence was destroyed and the defendant cannot obtain other evidence of comparable value by other means).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding an anonymous tip: Rule 804(b)(2), SCRE (providing that, in order for statement made under belief of impending death to qualify for exception to rule excluding hearsay, declarant must have made statement while believing his death was imminent); Rule 804(b)(3), SCRE (providing that, in order for statement against interest to qualify for exception to rule excluding hearsay, statement must have so far tended to subject declarant to criminal liability that no reasonable person in declarant's position would have made statement unless he believed it was true); State v. Kinloch, 338 S.C. 385, 389, 526 S.E.2d 705, 707 (2000) (holding statement tending to expose declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the statement was actually made); State v. Burgess, 391 S.C. 15, 22, 703 S.E.2d 512, 516 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding defendant's right to present complete defense was not violated when the trial court correctly excluded evidence under valid evidence rule).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.