State v. Samuel T. Riser

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.

Samuel Terrell Riser, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2023-000743

Appeal From Spartanburg County
R. Scott Sprouse, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2026-UP-218
Submitted April 1, 2026 – Filed May 13, 2026

AFFIRMED

Appellant Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of
Columbia, and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Samuel Terrell Riser appeals his convictions for attempted
murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime and
his sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, he argues the trial
court erred in admitting opinion testimony and crime scene photographs involving
trajectory rods. Riser contends the trial court erroneously allowed testimony which
required expertise and photographs including the trajectory rods that were
substantially more prejudicial than probative. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Deputy Jeffrey Dail to
give limited lay opinion testimony concerning the use of trajectory rods during the
investigation. See State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006)
(stating the trial court's admission of evidence "will not be reversed absent an
abuse of discretion"); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of
the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.");
Rule 701, SCRE ("If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness'[s]
testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or
inferences which (a) are rationally based on the perception of the witness, (b) are
helpful to a clear understanding of the witness'[s] testimony or the determination of
a fact in issue, and (c) do not require special knowledge, skill, experience or
training."); State v. Ostrowski, 435 S.C. 364, 385, 867 S.E.2d 269, 279 (2021)
(allowing an investigating officer to offer lay testimony based on his observations
and participation in investigating a crime scene); State v. Hamrick, 426 S.C. 638,
648, 828 S.E.2d 596, 601 (2019) (noting that Rule 701 provides that lay opinions
are "limited to those opinions . . . rationally based on the perception of the
witness"); id. (holding that because the officer arrived on the scene forty-eight
minutes after the accident, he "did not perceive the location of the impact"). Dail
explained to the jury how, in general, investigators mark a bullet's potential
trajectory path by balancing trajectory rods in corresponding bullet holes and
showed where he placed the trajectory rods at the crime scene. Dail was the
officer who placed the trajectory rods and his testimony was based upon his
personal observations and work while investigating the crime scene. He did not
draw any opinions or conclusions about the significance of the trajectory rods, nor
did he offer any during his testimony. The testimony regarding the trajectory rods
in no way aided the jury in determining the identity of the shooter, which was the
main issue at trial. Additionally, Dail's testimony about placing the trajectory rods
does not require the same specialized knowledge, training, or expertise as required
for testimony regarding accident reconstruction. Id. at 649, 828 S.E.2d at 602
(recognizing that accident reconstruction testimony requires an expert witness
foundation because "[a]ccident reconstruction is a highly technical and specialized
field" that relies upon principles unfamiliar to the general public).
2. The probative value of the photographs was not substantially outweighed by any
unfair prejudice or confusion; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting them. See Pagan, 369 S.C. at 208, 631 S.E.2d at 265 (stating the trial
court's admission of evidence "will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion");
id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either
lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); 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 . . . ."). The State offered the photographs showing the
trajectory rods as part of a larger set of photographs to help the jury understand the
crime scene and establish malice. The probative value of those photographs was
low because other photographs depicted bullet holes at the crime scene before
processing, and the contested photographs merely showed the same bullet holes
marked with trajectory rods. However, although the contested photographs
showed the trajectory rods in place, the rods did not convey any information about
the shooter or the location of the shooter. Additionally, photographs introduced at
trial depicting unprocessed bullet holes in the apartment independently showed that
bullets were fired in multiple areas. Therefore, any risk of prejudice, confusion, or
misleading the jury did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the
photographs.
AFFIRMED.1

THOMAS, MCDONALD, and TURNER, JJ., concur.

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