City of North Charleston v. Barra

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

City of North Charleston, Respondent,

v.

John Barra, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001871

Appeal From Charleston County
J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-275
Submitted March 1, 2016 – Filed June 8, 2016

AFFIRMED

Thomas C. Nelson, of Futeral & Nelson, LLC, of Mount
Pleasant, for Appellant.

J. Brady Hair and Derk Van Raalte, IV, of Law Offices
of J. Brady Hair, and Kriston D. Neely, Samantha Jean
Vaughn, Frances Daniel Austin, and Joseph Matthew
Kaiser, all of North Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2953(A) (Supp. 2015) ("The video recording at
the incident site must . . . include any field sobriety tests administered . . . ."); State
v. Gordon, 414 S.C. 94, 98, 777 S.E.2d 376, 378 (2015) ("The cardinal rule of
statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the
legislature." (quoting Sloan v. Hardee, 371 S.C. 495, 498, 640 S.E.2d 457, 459
(2007))); Town of Mt. Pleasant v. Roberts, 393 S.C. 332, 342, 713 S.E.2d 278, 283
(2011) ("A statute as a whole must receive practical, reasonable, and fair
interpretation consonant with the purpose, design, and policy of lawmakers."
(quoting Sloan v. S.C. Bd. of Physical Therapy Exam'rs, 370 S.C. 452, 468, 636
S.E.2d 598, 606 (2006))); id. at 347, 713 S.E.2d at 285 (recognizing the purpose of
section 56-5-2953 "is to create direct evidence of a DUI arrest"); State v. Taylor,
411 S.C. 294, 305, 768 S.E.2d 71, 77 (Ct. App. 2014) (noting prior cases
addressing section 56-5-2953 "demonstrate the plain language of the statute does
not require the video to encompass every action of the defendant, but requires
video of each event listed in the statute"); State v. Frazier, 357 S.C. 161, 165, 592
S.E.2d 621, 623 (2004) ("A trial court's admission or rejection of evidence is
generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when
the trial court's ruling is based on an error of law."); State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40,
48, 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) ("This [c]ourt reviews [Rule 403, SCRE,] rulings
pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard, and gives great deference to the trial
[court]'s decision.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, A.C.J., and SHORT and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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