State v. Ramirez ( 2008 )

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Evelia Ramirez, Appellant.

---

Appeal From Saluda County
James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

---

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-585
Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October 15, 2008

---

AFFIRMED

---

Deputy Chief Appellant Defender, Wanda H. Carter, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,  Harold M Coombs, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In this criminal appeal, Evelia Ramirez argues the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony regarding the level of force needed to inflict the victim’s injuries because the issue was a factual issue within the province of the jury.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  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.”); State v. White, 372 S.C. 364, 373, 642 S.E.2d 607, 611 (Ct. App. 2007) (cert. granted, Nov. 19, 2007) (holding the trial court has the discretion to qualify an expert witness and admit the expert’s testimony); Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 252-53, 487 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1997) (“To be competent to testify as an expert, ‘a witness must have acquired by reason of study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science that [s]he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject of h[er] testimony.’”).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

---

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