State v. Smith

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.

Jeremy Smith, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-000146

Appeal From Sumter County
W. Jeffrey Young, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-181
Submitted March 1, 2015 – Filed April 8, 2015

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Mary Williams Leddon, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III, of
Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Moses, 390 S.C. 502, 511, 702 S.E.2d 395, 399 (Ct. App.
2010) ("[R]ulings on the admission of evidence are within the trial court's
discretion and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. at 515, 702
S.E.2d at 402 ("In South Carolina, an individual asserting a Brady[1] violation must
demonstrate that the evidence: (1) was favorable to the accused; (2) was in the
possession of or known by the prosecution; (3) was suppressed by the State; and
(4) was material to the accused's guilt or innocence or was impeaching."); id. at
518, 702 S.E.2d at 403 ("While Brady imposes a duty on the State to disclose
material evidence favorable to the defendant, the State has the additional duty,
albeit not an absolute duty, to preserve evidence that is favorable to the
defendant."); id. at 518, 702 S.E.2d at 404 ("[A] defendant must demonstrate either
that [(1)] the State destroyed evidence in bad faith, or [(2)] the [S]tate destroyed
evidence that possessed an exculpatory value that is apparent before the evidence
was destroyed and the defendant cannot obtain other evidence of comparable value
by other means."); Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 (1988) (holding "unless
a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to
preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of
law").

AFFIRMED.2

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.