State v. Wright

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 Wright, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001960

Appeal From Beaufort County
Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-385
Submitted May 1, 2016 – Filed July 27, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Vann Henry Gunter, Jr., both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of
Bluffton, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In
criminal cases, the appellate court sits to review errors of law only."); State v.
Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 538, 552 S.E.2d 300, 307 (2001) ("The State does not
have an absolute duty to preserve potentially useful evidence that might exonerate
a defendant."); id. at 538-39, 552 S.E.2d at 307 ("To establish a due process
violation, a defendant must demonstrate (1) that the State destroyed the evidence in
bad faith, or (2) that the evidence possessed an exculpatory value apparent before
the evidence was destroyed and the defendant cannot obtain other evidence of
comparable value by other means."); State v. Adams, 304 S.C. 302, 304, 403
S.E.2d 678, 680 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding the defendant did not meet the standard
of constitutional materiality because he failed to show an exculpatory value
apparent before the State lost the evidence); State v. Hutton, 358 S.C. 622, 632,
595 S.E.2d 876, 882 (Ct. App. 2004) (finding the defendant could obtain evidence
of comparable value when the defendant's counsel was allowed to thoroughly
cross-examine a witness about the content of the discarded evidence).

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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