State v. Coakley

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.
Keenan Coakley, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-002659
Appeal From Charleston County
R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-412
Submitted July 1, 2015 – Filed August 12, 2015
AFFIRMED
William L. Runyon, Jr., of Charleston, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) (stating
"admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion," which occurs when the trial court's
conclusions "either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law");
State v. Thompson, 352 S.C. 552, 560, 575 S.E.2d 77, 82 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The
decision to grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial
[court]."); 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. 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."); State
v. Fletcher, 379 S.C. 17, 23, 664 S.E.2d 480, 483 (2008) ("Under Rule
404(b), . . . evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally not admissible to
prove the defendant's guilt for the crime charged."); Rule 403, SCRE (providing
relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"); State v. Wiles, 383 S.C. 151, 158,
679 S.E.2d 172, 176 (2009) ("Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to
suggest decision on an improper basis."); Thompson, 352 S.C. at 560-61, 575
S.E.2d at 82 (holding a vague reference to a defendant's prior criminal record was
insufficient to justify a mistrial when the State made no attempt to introduce
evidence that the defendant was convicted of other crimes).
AFFIRMED.1
FEW, C.J., and HUFF and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.