State v. Clemons

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.
Andrew Antonio Clemons, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2013-001951
Appeal From Anderson County
R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-557
Submitted October 1, 2015 – Filed December 16, 2015
AFFIRMED
Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Christina Catoe Bigelow, and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of
Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 343, 748 S.E.2d 194, 208 (2013)
("Generally, the admission of expert testimony is a matter within the sound
discretion of the trial court." (quoting State v. Whaley, 305 S.C. 138, 143, 406
S.E.2d 369, 372 (1991))); id. at 343-44, 748 S.E.2d at 208 ("Thus, we will not
reverse the trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony absent a
prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v. Grubbs, 353 S.C. 374, 379, 577 S.E.2d
493, 496 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of an expert's
testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion [when] the ruling is manifestly
arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair."); 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, 382 S.C. 265, 270, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("All
expert testimony must satisfy the Rule 702 criteria, and that includes the trial
court's gatekeeping function in ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets a
reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration."); State v. Council, 335
S.C. 1, 20, 515 S.E.2d 508, 518 (1999) (stating if the evidence is admissible under
Rule 702, then the trial court should also analyze the evidence under Rule 403,
SCRE); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury . . . ."); State v. Lee, 399 S.C. 521,
527, 732 S.E.2d 225, 228 (Ct. App. 2012) ("A trial court has particularly wide
discretion in ruling on Rule 403 objections."); State v. Dial, 405 S.C. 247, 260, 746
S.E.2d 495, 502 (Ct. App. 2013) ("A trial [court's] decision regarding the
comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of relevant evidence should be
reversed only in exceptional circumstances." (quoting State v. Martucci, 380 S.C.
232, 250, 669 S.E.2d 598, 607 (Ct. App. 2008))); State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 339,
665 S.E.2d 201, 207 (Ct. App. 2008) ("If judicial self-restraint is ever desirable, it
is when a Rule 403 analysis of a trial court is reviewed by an appellate tribunal.").
AFFIRMED.1
SHORT, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.