State v. Madden

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.

Verner E.
Madden, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-281 

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed June 10,
2011

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of
Columbia; and W. Walter Wilkins, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Verner E. Madden appeals his conviction for
committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of sixteen.  He contends the
trial court erred in (1) declining to grant his post-verdict motion for a new
trial and (2) not permitting a sample piece of fence to be entered into
evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the
trial court erred in declining to grant the motion for a new trial: State v.
Taylor, 348 S.C. 152, 159, 558 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding
that a new trial motion should not be granted in a criminal case where evidence
supports the conviction).

2.  As
to whether the trial court erred in not permitting the sample piece of fence to
be entered into evidence: Rule 403, SCRE (providing that relevant evidence
"may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of . . . confusion of the issues[] or misleading the jury").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF,
WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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