State v. Patterson

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Richard Kevin Patterson,       
Appellant.

Appeal From
Anderson County

J. C. Buddy
Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Opinion
No.    2003-UP-143

Submitted
December 9, 2003 - Filed February 19, 2003

AFFIRMED

Tara  Shurling, of Columbia, for appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster,
Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Derrick K. McFarland,
of Columbia; Druanne Dykes White, of Anderson; for respondent. 

PER CURIAM:  Richard K. Patterson appeals his convictions for murder
and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, arguing
the trial court erred in curtailing cross-examination of the State=s pathologist
and in denying his motion for mistrial. 

We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR, and the following authorities: 
Issue I:  State v. Burroughs, 328 S.C. 489, 497, 492 S.E.2d
408, 412 (Ct. App. 1997) ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made
by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence
to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  [Hearsay] testimony [i]s properly
admitted only if it falls within one of the established exceptions to the
general rule that hearsay is inadmissible.") (citations omitted); State
v. Galloway, 305 S.C. 258, 264, 407 S.E.2d 662, 666 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding
trial judge did not err in excluding testimony where "the record plainly reveals
it was hearsay and [the defendant] failed to demonstrate it came within any
exception to the hearsay rule";  Issue II:  State v. Rosemond,
335 S.C. 593, 596-97, 518 S.E.2d 588, 589-90 (1999) ("The relevance, materiality
and admissibility of photographs are matters within the sound discretion of
the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse
of discretion. . . .  If the photograph serves to corroborate testimony, it
is not an abuse of discretion to admit it."); State v. Harris, 340
S.C. 59, 63, 530 S.E.2d 626, 628 (2000) ("A mistrial should only be granted
when absolutely necessary.  In order to receive a mistrial, the defendant
must show error and resulting prejudice.") (internal citation omitted); State
v. Kelsey, 502 S.E.2d 63, 69, 331 S.C. 50, 73 (1998) ("The decision to
grant or deny a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge
and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); State
v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 498 S.E.2d 642 (1998) (stating a defendant
cannot acquiesce in an issue at trial and then complain about it on appeal). 

AFFIRMED. 

GOOLSBY, HUFF, and SHULER, JJ., concur.