State v. Haynes

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.

John Edward Haynes, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-000468

Appeal From Calhoun County
Diane Schafer Goodstein, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-228
Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed May 6, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr., of
Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Cope, 405 S.C. 317, 343, 748 S.E.2d 194, 208 (2013)
("Generally, the admission of expert testimony is a matter within the sound
discretion of the trial court." (internal quotation marks omitted)); id. at 343-44, 748
S.E.2d at 208 ("Thus, we will not reverse the trial court's decision to admit or
exclude expert testimony absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v.
Burton, 302 S.C. 494, 499, 397 S.E.2d 90, 92 (1990) (recognizing an expert may
give an opinion based on a hypothetical question, but the hypothetical question
"should be based upon facts supported by the record"); State v. Vaughn, 268 S.C.
119, 125, 232 S.E.2d 328, 330 (1977) ("[V]oluntary intoxication, where it has not
produced permanent insanity, is never an excuse for or a defense to crime,
regardless of whether the intent involved be general or specific."); State v.
Santiago, 370 S.C. 153, 162, 634 S.E.2d 23, 28 (Ct. App. 2006) ("[T]he
diminished capacity defense is not recognized in South Carolina.").

AFFIRMED.1

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

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