State v. Bell

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Chico Jermaine Bell, Appellant.

Appeal from Richland County

Judge Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-027

Submitted January 2, 2009 – Filed January
13, 2009  

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Chico Jermaine
Bell appeals his conviction for armed robbery, arguing the trial court erred in requiring Bell to display his
tattoo to the jury. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Day, 341 S.C. 410, 422, 535 S.E.2d 431, 437 (2000). (“Evidence
concerning a defendant’s tattoo or nickname is not prejudicial when used to
prove something at issue in a trial, such as the identification of the
defendant.”); State v. Moore, 308 S.C. 349, 351, 417 S.E.2d 869, 870
(1992) (“Constitutional safeguards are invaded only when the defendant is
required to give testimonial evidence against himself.  They do not extend to
the refusal by a defendant to reveal those physical traits that may be made by
ordinary observation.”); State v. Pinkard, 365 S.C. 541, 543, 617 S.E.2d
397, 398 (Ct. App. 2005) (providing the display of a tattoo is non-testimonial
evidence).   

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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