State v. Brown

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.
Donte Samar Brown, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-001082
Appeal From Berkeley County
Roger M. Young, Sr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-447
Heard September 21, 2016 – Filed November 2, 2016
AFFIRMED
Appellate Defender John Harrison Strom, of Columbia,
for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Deputy Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of
Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Donte Samar Brown appeals his convictions of armed robbery,
kidnapping, criminal conspiracy, and burglary in the second degree. He contends
the trial court erred in admitting global positioning system (GPS) records from an
electronic monitoring device under the business records exception to the rule
against hearsay, Rule 803(6), SCRE. He also maintains the trial court erred in
admitting evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, which he argues was
defective under section 17-13-140 of the South Carolina Code (2014). We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting GPS records from the electronic
monitoring device: Rule 801(c), SCRE ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one
made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to
prove the truth of the matter asserted."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (providing under the
business records exception to the rule against hearsay, evidence is admissible if it
is "[a] memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts,
events, conditions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information
transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly
conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business
activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown
by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of
information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of
trustworthiness"); State v. Mitchell, 286 S.C. 572, 573, 336 S.E.2d 150, 151 (1985)
(affirming the conviction despite the admission of hearsay testimony that did not
fall within any exceptions because "there was abundant evidence in the record
from which the jury could have found appellant guilty, notwithstanding the hearsay
testimony").
2. As to whether or not the trial court erred in admitting evidence obtained
pursuant to the search warrant: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 ("Any warrant issued
hereunder shall be executed and return made only within ten days after it is dated.
The officer executing the warrant shall make and deliver a signed inventory of any
articles seized by virtue of the warrant, which shall be delivered to the judicial
officer to whom the return is to be made, and if a copy of the inventory is
demanded by the person from whose person or premises the property is taken, a
copy of the inventory shall be delivered to him."); State v. Weaver, 374 S.C. 313,
323, 649 S.E.2d 479, 484 (2007) ("[T]he State's failure to comply with the
statutory ministerial requirement does not void the warrant and the evidence can
not be excluded on this ground."); id. (holding evidence was still admissible
despite a faulty warrant because the appellant failed to show any prejudice).
AFFIRMED.
LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.