State v. Starmes

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.
Willie Thomas Starnes, Appellant.
Appellate Case No. 2014-002652
Appeal From Kershaw County
DeAndrea G. Benjamin, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-522
Heard November 8, 2016 – Filed December 21, 2016
AFFIRMED
Erick Matthew Barbare, of The Barbare Law Firm, of
Greenville, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert
Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant
Attorney General Sherrie Ann Butterbaugh, and Solicitor
Daniel Edward Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 16, 732 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("In
criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review only errors of law, and it is bound
by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous."); State v.
Vang, 353 S.C. 78, 83-84, 577 S.E.2d 225, 227 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The admission or
rejection of testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and will not
be overturned absent a showing of abuse of discretion, legal error, and prejudice to
the appellant."); Rule 802, SCRE ("Hearsay is not admissible except as provided
by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court of this State or by
statute."); Rule 803(2), SCRE (providing the rule against hearsay does not exclude
"[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant
was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition"); State v.
Hendricks, 408 S.C. 525, 532, 759 S.E.2d 434, 437-38 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The
supreme court has identified three elements a trial court must consider when
determining whether a statement has the spontaneous quality necessary for
admission as an excited utterance: '(1) the statement must relate to a startling event
or condition; (2) the statement must have been made while the declarant was under
the stress of excitement; and (3) the stress of excitement must be caused by the
startling event or condition.'" (quoting State v. Washington, 379 S.C. 120, 124, 665
S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008))); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 94, 544 S.E.2d 30, 34
(2001) ("In determining whether a statement falls within the excited utterance
exception, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances." (citing State v.
Dennis, 337 S.C. 275, 284, 523 S.E.2d 173, 177 (1999))).
AFFIRMED.1
HUFF and SHORT, JJ., and MOORE, A.J., concur.
1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.