State v. Evans

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.

Barry Allen
Evans, Appellant.

Appeal From Anderson County

J.C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-147

Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 11,
2011  

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; Solicitor
Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Appellant
Barry Allen Evans appeals his convictions for assault and battery with intent
to kill and possession of a weapon.  On appeal, Evans argues the trial court
erred in: (1) denying Evans' motion to suppress the 911 tapes; (2) denying
Evans' motion to suppress photographs of the victim's injuries; and (3)
overruling Evans' objection to a statement made by the solicitor when
cross-examining a witness.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to the denial of Evans' motions
to suppress: Rule 403, SCRE (excluding relevant evidence if the court
determines its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial
effect); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176, 185-86, 577 S.E.2d 438, 442-43
(2003) (finding the probative value of 911 tapes outweighed their prejudicial
nature because the tapes described the scene of the crime immediately after the
crime occurred); State v.
Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208,
631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) (holding rulings on the admissibility of evidence
are within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal
absent an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice);  State v. Todd,
290 S.C. 212, 214, 349 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1986) ("There is no abuse of
discretion if the offered photograph serves to corroborate testimony."); State
v. Bennett, 369 S.C. 219, 228-29, 632 S.E.2d 281, 286-87 (2006) (affirming
the trial court's admission of hospital photos of the victim that were
introduced to show the extent of the victim's injuries).

2. As to overruling Evans' objection:  State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 196, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (noting a trial court’s ruling on the scope of
cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a “manifest abuse of
discretion").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, SHORT,
and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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