State v. Black

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.

Jason Ervin
Black, Appellant.

Appeal From Pickens County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-370

Heard April 13, 2010 – Filed July 19, 2010

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L.
Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster,
Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Jason
Ervin Black was convicted of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor in the
first degree and lewd act upon a minor.  Black received twenty years'
imprisonment for CSC and fifteen years' imprisonment for the lewd act offense,
to run concurrently.  On appeal, Black argues the trial court erred in allowing
the State to impeach Black's corroborating witness with two manslaughter
convictions over ten years old.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 609(a)(1), SCRE (allowing, for impeachment purposes,
admission of evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted
of a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, but with the
proviso that such evidence may be excluded under Rule 403, SCRE); Rule 609(b),
SCRE (prohibiting the admission of evidence of a conviction to impeach a
witness if more than ten years has elapsed since the later of the date of the conviction
or the date of the release of the witness from the confinement imposed for that
conviction "unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction supported
by specific facts and circumstances substantially outweighs its prejudicial
effect"); State v. Colf, 337 S.C. 622, 629, 525 S.E.2d 246, 249
(2000) ("The balancing test required by Rule 609(b) must be conducted by
the trial court."); State v. Smith, 337 S.C. 27, 33-34, 522 S.E.2d
598, 601 (1999) (upholding the disclosure to the jury of the defendant's prior
domestic violence conviction in a trial on charges of murder and assault and
battery with intent to kill, concluding the probative value of the prior
conviction was not outweighed by unfair prejudice and the trial judge did not
abuse his discretion in admitting it).

AFFIRMED. 

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS,
JJ., concur.