State v. McBride

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.

Clyde Leroy
McBride, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-357

Submitted June 1, 2010 – Filed July 12,
2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Robert M. Pachak, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe; and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Clyde Leroy McBride appeals his convictions for
first-degree burglary, kidnapping, and armed robbery.  On appeal, McBride
argues the State failed to prove a complete chain of custody for DNA evidence
because it failed to establish a complete chain of custody for the vehicle in
which his DNA was discovered.  The State was not required to prove the chain of
custody for the vehicle because it possesses unique identifiable
characteristics.  See State v. Freiburger, 366 S.C. 125, 134, 620
S.E.2d 737, 741-42 (2005).  The State introduced evidence that the samples
used for DNA testing were taken from the victim's stolen vehicle.  No further
authentication was required.  Accordingly, because the State proved the chain
of custody from the time the samples were collected from the vehicle until they
were tested for DNA, we affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and
the following authorities: State v.
Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission
of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); see State v. Carter,
344 S.C. 419, 424, 544 S.E.2d 835, 837 (2001) (noting a complete chain of
custody must be established, as far as practicable, tracing possession from the
time a sample is collected until the final custodian by whom it is analyzed).

Affirmed.

FEW,
C.J., THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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