State v. Massey

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.

Clayton L. Massey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000657

Appeal From York County
John C. Hayes, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-455
Submitted October 1, 2014 – Filed December 10, 2014

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Moore, 343 S.C. 282, 288, 540 S.E.2d 445, 448 (2000)
("Generally, the decision to admit an eyewitness identification is at the trial court's
discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of such, or the
commission of prejudicial legal error."); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 498, 629
S.E.2d 363, 365 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's
ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion that is without evidentiary
support."); State v. Traylor, 360 S.C. 74, 81, 600 S.E.2d 523, 526-27 (2004) ("The
United States Supreme Court has developed a two-prong inquiry to determine the
admissibility of an out-of-court identification. First, a court must ascertain whether
the identification process was unduly suggestive. The court must next decide
whether the out-of-court identification was nevertheless so reliable that no
substantial likelihood of misidentification existed." (internal citation omitted));
State v. Turner, 373 S.C. 121, 127, 644 S.E.2d 693, 696 (2007) ("Even assuming
an identification procedure is suggestive, it need not be excluded so long as, under
all the circumstances, the identification was reliable notwithstanding the
suggestiveness."); Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 196-97 (1972) ("[C]onvictions
based on eye-witness identification at trial following a pretrial identification by
photograph will be set aside on [the] ground [of suggestiveness] only if the
photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give
rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and THOMAS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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