State v. Outz

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.

Ervin Outz, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-176966

Appeal From Saluda County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-004
Submitted December 3, 2012 – Filed January 9, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant
Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002) ("The
admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Wright, 391 S.C. 436, 442, 706
S.E.2d 324, 326 (2011) ("'An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's
ruling is based on an error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is
without evidentiary support.'" (quoting Clark v. Cantrell, 339 S.C. 369, 389, 529
S.E.2d 528, 539 (2000))); U.S. Const. amend. IV ("The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ."); Wright, 391 S.C. at 442, 706 S.E.2d at
327 ("Warrantless searches and seizures are unreasonable absent a recognized
exception to the warrant requirement."); State v. Herring, 387 S.C. 201, 210, 692
S.E.2d 490, 495 (2009) ("A warrantless search is justified under the exigent
circumstances doctrine to prevent a suspect from fleeing or where there is a risk of
danger to police or others inside or outside a dwelling.").

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and WILLIAMS and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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