20-UP-020 - The State v. Massey

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.

Timiya Rashad Massey, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-002348

Appeal From Greenville County
Robin B. Stilwell, Circuit Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-020
Submitted January 1, 2020 – Filed January 29, 2020

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, 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 Samuel E. Bailey, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Timiya Massey appeals his convictions for murder, attempted
murder, first degree burglary, kidnapping, attempted armed robbery, and
possession of a weapon during a violent crime. On appeal, Massey argues the trial
court erred in refusing to allow him to question an alleged accomplice regarding
his potential sentencing exposure. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR
and the following authorities: State v. Mizzell, 349 S.C. 326, 331, 563 S.E.2d 315,
317 (2002) ("The trial [court] retains discretion to impose reasonable limits on the
scope of cross-examination."); id. ("Before a trial [court] may limit a criminal
defendant's right to engage in cross-examination to show bias on the part of the
witness, the record must clearly show the cross-examination is inappropriate.");
State v. Gracely, 399 S.C. 363, 371, 731 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("[The appellate
court] will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope of
cross-examination of a witness to test his or her credibility, or to show possible
bias or self-interest in testifying, absent a manifest abuse of discretion.").

AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, GEATHERS, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.

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