State v. Wright

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.

Jeremy Saquan
Wright, Appellant.

Appeal From Dillon County

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-334  

Submitted May 1, 2012 – Filed May 30, 2012

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J.
Zelenka, and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Salter, III, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor William B. Rogers, Jr., of Bennettsville, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Jeremy Saquan Wright appeals his
convictions of murder and possession of a weapon during the commission of a
violent crime, arguing the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to
cross-examine a witness regarding bias.  We affirm[1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v.
Quattlebaum, 338 S.C. 441, 450, 527 S.E.2d 105, 109 (2000) ("As a
general rule, a trial court's ruling on the proper scope of cross-examination
will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of discretion."); State
v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 33, 538 S.E.2d 248, 255 (2000) ("The
right to a meaningful cross-examination of an adverse witness is included in
the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers."); id. at 33-34, 538 S.E.2d at 255 ("This does not mean, however, that trial
courts conducting criminal trials lose their usual discretion to
limit the scope of cross-examination."); id. at 34, 538 S.E.2d at
255 ("On the contrary, trial [courts] retain wide latitude . . . to impose
reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among
other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, witness' safety,
or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS, and
GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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