In the Matter of Randal Wade McCoy

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Randal Wade
McCoy, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2015-000485

Appeal From Aiken County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-033
Submitted November 1, 2016 – Filed January 11, 2017

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe,
both of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: In re Manigo, 389 S.C. 96, 106, 697 S.E.2d 629, 633-34 (Ct. App.
2010) ("The admissibility of an expert's testimony is within the trial [court's] sound
discretion, whose decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id.
at 106, 697 S.E.2d at 633 ("To constitute an abuse of discretion, the conclusions of
the trial [court] must lack evidentiary support or be controlled by an error of law.");
State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) (stating
this court will reverse a "trial [court's] decision regarding the comparative
probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence . . . only in exceptional
circumstances"); S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-80(D) (Supp. 2016) (permitting the
circuit court to appoint an expert to evaluate "whether the person is a sexually
violent predator"); Rule 702, SCRE ("If scientific, technical, or other specialized
knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a
fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience,
training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.");
State v. White, 382 S.C. 265, 270, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("[A]ll expert
testimony under Rule 702, SCRE, imposes on the trial courts an affirmative and
meaningful gatekeeping duty."); id. (finding the trial court's gatekeeping function
includes "ensuring the proposed expert testimony meets a reliability threshold for
the jury's ultimate consideration"); State v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562, 572, 541 S.E.2d
813, 818 (2001) ("Scientific evidence is admissible under Rule 702, SCRE, if the
trial [court] determines: (1) the evidence will assist the trier of fact; (2) the expert
witness is qualified; (3) the underlying science is reliable, applying the factors
found in State v. Jones, 273 S.C. 723, 259 S.E.2d 120 (1979); and (4) the probative
value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect."); Jones, 343 S.C. at 573,
541 S.E.2d at 819 ("The Jones reliability factors take into consideration: (1) the
publications and peer reviews of the technique; (2) prior application of the method
to the type of evidence involved in the case; (3) the quality control procedures used
to ensure reliability; and (4) the consistency of the method with recognized
scientific laws and procedures.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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