State v. Wilkins

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.

Wendall Bernard Wilkins, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002276

Appeal From Spartanburg County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-418
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 5, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The
admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when
the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled
by an error of law."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of
undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.");
State v. Gray, 408 S.C. 601, 616, 759 S.E.2d 160, 168 (Ct. App. 2014) ("Prejudice
that is 'unfair' is distinguished from the legitimate impact all evidence has on the
outcome of a case."); id. ("All evidence is meant to be prejudicial; it is only unfair
prejudice which must be [scrutinized under Rule 403]." (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. Gilchrist, 329 S.C. 621, 630, 496 S.E.2d 424, 429 (Ct. App.
1998))); State v. Orozco, 392 S.C. 212, 218, 708 S.E.2d 227, 230 (Ct. App. 2011)
("An appellate court reviews 403 rulings, balancing whether the probative value of
evidence was substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect, pursuant to the
abuse of discretion standard, and gives great deference to the trial court's
decision.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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