Brown v. State

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

Deonte Brown, Petitioner,

v.

State of South Carolina, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002269

Appeal From Charleston County
Roger M. Young, Circuit Court Judge
Michael G. Nettles, Post-Conviction Relief Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-284
Submitted September 1, 2020 – Filed October 7, 2020

AFFIRMED

Tommy Arthur Thomas, of Irmo, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Jonathan Scott Matthews, both of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari from the denial of his
application for post-conviction relief (PCR). Because there is sufficient evidence
to support the PCR judge's finding that Petitioner did not knowingly and
intelligently waive his right to a direct appeal, we grant certiorari as to this
question and proceed with a review of the direct appeal issue pursuant to Davis v.
State, 288 S.C. 290, 342 S.E.2d 60 (1986). We deny certiorari on Petitioner's
remaining questions.

On direct appeal, Petitioner argues the trial court erred in (1) allowing testimony of
Investigator Kenny Barfield regarding statements allegedly made by Chavis
Heyward under Rule 613(b) of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence and (2)
allowing the State to present still video frames from a surveillance video to the jury
in its closing arguments that were not introduced into evidence. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. The trial court did not err in allowing into evidence the testimony of Investigator
Barfield regarding the statements allegedly made by Chavis Heyward under Rule
613(b), SCRE because Investigator Barfield's testimony was admissible as
extrinsic evidence of Heyward's prior inconsistent statement. See State v. Dawson,
402 S.C. 160, 163, 740 S.E.2d 501, 502 (2013) ("In criminal cases, the appellate
court sits to review errors of law only."); 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 [trial 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 trial court
either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." (quoting State
v. Laney, 367 S.C. 369, 643-44, 627 S.E.2d 726, 729 (2006)). Here, Heyward was
advised of the substance of the statement, the time and place the statement was
made, to whom the statement was given, and he denied having made the statement.
See Rule 613(b), SCRE ("Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is
admissible only if the witness is advised of the substance of the statement, the time
and place it was given, and to whom the statement was made, and is given a
chance to explain or deny the statement.").

2. The trial court did not err in allowing the State to present still frames from the
surveillance video to the jury during closing argument. See Clark v. Cantrell, 339
S.C. 369, 383, 529 S.E.2d 528, 535 (2000) ("Demonstrative evidence includes
items such as a photograph, chart, diagram, or video animation that explains or
summarizes other evidence and testimony.); id. ("Such evidence has secondary
relevance to the issues at hand; it is not directly relevant, but must rely on other
material testimony for relevance."); id. ("Demonstrative evidence is distinguishable
from exhibits that compromise 'real' or substantive evidence, such as the actual
murder weapon or a written document containing allegedly defamatory
statements."); id. ("Demonstrative evidence often is admitted only for use in the
courtroom to explain and illustrate a witness's testimony, but it also may be
admissible as an exhibit for the jury to examine and consider during
deliberations."). Here, the State used the still video frames to summarize the entire
surveillance video, which had already been admitted into evidence. The trial court
did not allow the still frames to go back with the jury, and Petitioner used the same
video and paused it throughout his closing argument.

AFFIRMED. 1

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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