State v. Moore

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.

Jack Randall Moore, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000907

Appeal From Spartanburg County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-459
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed November 9, 2016

AFFIRMED

Oscar W. Bannister, of Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, LLC,
of Greenville, for Appellant.

Charles J. Hodge, of Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC, 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 [circuit] court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when
the conclusions of the [circuit] court either lack evidentiary support or are
controlled by an error of law."); Rule 801(d)(1), SCRE ("A statement is not
hearsay if . . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-
examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with
the declarant's testimony . . . ."); Wright v. Hiester Constr. Co., 389 S.C. 504, 520,
698 S.E.2d 822, 831 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he South Carolina Rules of Evidence
contemplate that use of a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes is
permitted only when the proponent is seeking to impeach a declarant who has
testified at trial inconsistently with the prior statement.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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