State v. Baker

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Donald D.
Baker, Appellant.

Appeal From Berkeley County

 Daniel  F.  Pieper, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-085

Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed
February 8, 2008

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Katherine Hudgins, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph
E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Donald
D. Baker appeals from his convictions for criminal domestic violence of a high
and aggravated nature and criminal domestic violence, third offense.  He argues
the trial court erred by refusing to admit a photograph depicting his medical
condition, a crucial part of his self-defense claim. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 403, SCRE
(“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed . . . by considerations of undue delay, waste of time,
or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”); State v. Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 199, 577 S.E.2d 445, 450 (2003) (“The relevance, materiality
and admissibility of photographs are matters within the sound discretion of the
trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of
discretion.”).

AFFIRMED

ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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