State v. Beaty

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.

Tyrone Beaty, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2010-167826

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-252
Heard June 4, 2013 – Filed June 19, 2013

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Senior
Assistant Attorney General W. Edgar Salter III, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, of
Conway, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: This appeal arises out of Appellant Tyrone Beaty's convictions
for murder and armed robbery. On appeal, Beaty argues the trial court erred by
allowing a police officer, qualified without objection as an expert in forensic
investigation, to testify that a gunshot wound to the victim's hand was a defensive
wound and could not have occurred while the victim was reaching for a handgun
on his person. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Commander, 396 S.C. 254, 262, 721 S.E.2d 413, 417 (2011)
(noting the admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the trial court's
sound discretion); State v. Price, 368 S.C. 494, 498, 629 S.E.2d 363, 365 (2006)
(providing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony will not be
reversed absent a prejudicial abuse of discretion); State v. Robinson, 396 S.C. 577,
587, 722 S.E.2d 820, 825 (Ct. App. 2012) (finding a trial court does not abuse its
discretion in qualifying a witness as an expert if 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"); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212, 631 S.E.2d 262, 267 (2006)
("Error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where it did not contribute to the
verdict obtained."); id. ("[A]n insubstantial error not affecting the result of the trial
is harmless where guilt has been conclusively proven by competent evidence such
that no other rational conclusion can be reached." (quotations omitted)); Hill v.
State, 647 S.W.2d 306, 309 (Tex. App. 1982) (holding the trial court did not err by
admitting the testimony of a police officer qualified as a certified police officer on
whether the victim's wound was defensive).

AFFIRMED.

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