State v. Spears

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.

Brian K. Spears, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000480

Appeal From Horry County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2019-UP-230
Submitted June 3, 2019 – Filed June 26, 2019

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak and Appellate
Defender Taylor Davis Gilliam, both of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General W. Jeffrey Young, Deputy Attorney
General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Deputy
Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and Assistant
Attorney General William Joseph Maye, all of Columbia,
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Wallace, 384 S.C. 428, 435, 683 S.E.2d 275, 278 (2009)
("Once bad act evidence is found admissible under Rule 404(b), the trial court must
then conduct the prejudice analysis required by Rule 403, SCRE." (emphasis
added)), overruled on other grounds by State v. King, 424 S.C. 188, 200 n.6, 818
S.E.2d 204, 210 n.6 (2018); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may
be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by
considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of
cumulative evidence."); State v. King, 349 S.C. 142, 156, 561 S.E.2d 640, 647 (Ct.
App. 2002) (stating when an on-the-record Rule 403 analysis is required, the
appellate court "will not reverse the conviction if the trial [court's] comments
concerning the matter indicate [it] was cognizant of the evidentiary rule when
admitting the evidence of [a defendant's] prior bad acts"); State v. Hamilton, 344
S.C. 344, 357, 543 S.E.2d 586, 593 (Ct. App. 2001) ("A trial [court's] decision
regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence
should be reversed only in 'exceptional circumstances.'" (quoting United States v.
Green, 887 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1989))), overruled on other grounds by State v.
Gentry, 363 S.C. 93, 610 S.E.2d 494 (2005).

AFFIRMED.1

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

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