In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Mitchell Shane Matthews ( 2009 )

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Mitchell Shane Matthews, Appellant.

---

Appeal From York County
John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-616
Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed December 22, 2009   

---

AFFIRMED

---

Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mitchell Shane Matthews appeals his commitment to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health under the Sexually Violent Predator Act.  On appeal, Matthews argues the trial court erred in allowing the State's expert witness to testify about statements from non-testifying third parties.  Specifically, Matthews argues the statements constituted hearsay.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 703, SCRE (allowing experts to testify to facts not ordinarily admissible if they are facts reasonably relied upon by experts in the field to form an opinion); Jones v. Doe, 372 S.C. 53, 63, 640 S.E.2d 519, 519 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding an expert may testify on the facts or bases of his opinion, even if the evidence is hearsay, so long as the testimony is only used to explain to the jury the basis of his opinion); Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid of S.C., Inc., 339 S.C. 285, 295, 529 S.E.2d 45, 50 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating Rule 703, SCRE allows an expert to "base his opinion on information, whether or not admissible, made available to him before the hearing if the information is of the type reasonably relied upon in the field to make opinions").

AFFIRMED.

Williams, pieper, and lockemy, JJ., concur. 

---

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.