State v. Chapman

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.

James D. Chapman, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-198167

Appeal From Greenville County
G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-151
Submitted March 1, 2013 – Filed April 10, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellant Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor William Walter Wilkins, III,
of Greenville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. White, 372 S.C. 364, 373, 642 S.E.2d 607, 611 (Ct. App.
2007) ("The qualification of an expert witness and the admissibility of the expert's
testimony are matters within the trial court's sound discretion."); id. ("The trial
court's decision to admit expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal absent an
abuse of discretion."); id. ("To warrant reversal based on the admission or
exclusion of evidence, the complaining party must prove both the error of the
ruling and the resulting prejudice."); id. at 374, 642 S.E.2d at 611 ("To show
prejudice, there must be a reasonable probability that the jury's verdict was
influenced by the challenged evidence or the lack thereof."); id. at 374-75, 642
S.E.2d at 612 ("There is no abuse of discretion as long as the witness has acquired
by study or practical experience such knowledge of the subject matter of his
testimony as would enable him to give guidance and assistance to the jury in
resolving a factual issue which is beyond the scope of the jury's good judgment and
common knowledge."); id. at 375, 642 S.E.2d at 612 ("For a court to find a witness
competent to testify as an expert, the witness must be better qualified than the fact
finder to form an opinion on the particular subject of the testimony."); State v.
Robinson, 396 S.C. 577, 586, 722 S.E.2d 820, 825 (Ct. App. 2012) ("However,
defects in the amount or quality of education or experience go to the weight of the
expert's testimony and not its admissibility.").

AFFIRMED.1

SHORT, THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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