In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Mitchell Shane Matthews

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

In the Matter of
the Care and Treatment of Mitchell Shane Matthews, Appellant.

Appeal From York County

John M. Milling, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-616

Submitted December 1, 2009 – Filed
December 22, 2009   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Deborah
R.J. Shupe, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Mitchell
Shane Matthews appeals his commitment to the South Carolina Department of
Mental Health under the Sexually Violent Predator Act.  On appeal, Matthews
argues the trial court erred in allowing the State's expert witness to testify about
statements from non-testifying third parties.  Specifically, Matthews argues
the statements constituted hearsay.  We affirm[1] pursuant
to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 703, SCRE (allowing
experts to testify to facts not ordinarily admissible if they are facts
reasonably relied upon by experts in the field to form an opinion); Jones v. Doe,
372 S.C. 53, 63, 640 S.E.2d 519, 519 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding an expert may
testify on the facts or bases of his opinion, even if the evidence is hearsay, so
long as the testimony is only used to explain to the jury the basis of his
opinion); Hundley ex rel. Hundley v. Rite Aid of S.C., Inc., 339 S.C.
285, 295, 529 S.E.2d 45, 50 (Ct. App. 2000) (stating Rule 703, SCRE allows an
expert to "base his opinion on information, whether or not admissible,
made available to him before the hearing if the information is of the type
reasonably relied upon in the field to make opinions").

AFFIRMED.

Williams, pieper, and lockemy, JJ., concur. 

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