State v. Clark

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.

George Anthony Clark, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001861

Appeal From Abbeville County
Donald B. Hocker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-200
Submitted April 1, 2020 – Filed July 1, 2020

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George Anthony Clark appeals his conviction of criminal sexual
conduct with a minor and his sentence of fifteen years' imprisonment. On appeal,
Clark argues the circuit court erred by not redacting (1) Clark's statements made
during a police interview discussing pleading guilty in order to save the minor
from the trauma of testifying and his comments about being "drugged" and (2) the
minor's statements in her forensic interview about her life. We affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114,
121, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is left
to the sound discretion of the [circuit court], whose decision will not be reversed
on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); State v. Scott, 414 S.C. 482, 486, 779
S.E.2d 529, 531 (2015) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of
the [circuit] court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of
law." (quoting State v. Laney, 367 S.C. 639, 643-44, 627 S.E.2d 726, 729 (2006)));
Saltz, 346 S.C. at 136, 551 S.E.2d at 252 ("The [circuit] court's factual conclusions
as to the voluntariness of a statement will not be disturbed on appeal unless so
manifestly erroneous as to show an abuse of discretion."); State v. Miller, 375 S.C.
370, 378, 652 S.E.2d 444, 448 (Ct. App. 2007) ("The [circuit court] determines the
admissibility of a statement upon proof of its voluntariness by a preponderance of
the evidence."); 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, 608, 759 S.E.2d 160, 164 (Ct. App. 2014) ("A [circuit] court
has particularly wide discretion in ruling on Rule 403 objections." (quoting State v.
Lee, 399 S.C. 521, 527, 732 S.E.2d 225, 228 (Ct. App. 2012))); id. at 609-10, 759
S.E.2d at 165 ("'Probative' means '[t]ending to prove or disprove.'" (quoting
Probative, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (alteration by the court))); id. at
610, 759 S.E.2d at 165 ("'Probative value' is the measure of the importance of that
tendency to the outcome of a case. It is the weight that a piece of relevant
evidence will carry in helping the trier of fact decide the issues."); id. at 616, 759
S.E.2d at 168 ("Prejudice that is 'unfair' is distinguished from the legitimate impact
all evidence has on the outcome of a case.").

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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