State v. Damon Ratiek Riley ( 2022 )

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.
Damon Ratiek Riley, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2019-001810
Appeal From Dorchester County
Maite Murphy, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-165
Submitted March 1, 2022 – Filed April 6, 2022
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Ambree Michele Muller, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Damon Ratiek Riley appeals his conviction of two counts of
attempted murder and one count of possession of a weapon during the commission
of a violent crime and his aggregate sentence of sixty years' imprisonment. On
appeal, he argues the trial court erred by denying his motion to exclude a video and
photographs of him brandishing a weapon in a moving vehicle as improper
character evidence under Rule 404(b), SCRE. We hold the trial court properly
found the evidence was offered to show identity and the danger of unfair prejudice
did not outweigh the evidence's probative value. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Douglas, 369
S.C. 424, 429, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48 (2006) ("The admission or exclusion of
evidence is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its
ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion
accompanied by probable prejudice."); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631
S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of
the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.");
Rule 404(b), SCRE ("Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to
prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.");
id. ("It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a
common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent."); Rule 403,
SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . ."); State v. Gillian,
373 S.C. 601, 610-11, 646 S.E.2d 872, 877 (2007) (finding evidence of the
defendant's prior involvement in a burglary was admissible to show identity when
the State presented testimony the defendant was in possession of a stolen weapon
consistent with the murder weapon).
AFFIRMED.1
WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.