State v. Seich

FACTS

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.

William Charles Seich,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2004-UP-192

Submitted December 8, 2003 – Filed March
22, 2004

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster; Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh; Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson;
Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter III, of Columbia; Solicitor
Harold W. Gowdy III, of Spartanburg; for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: William Charles Seich (“Seich”)
was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. 
Seich argues on appeal the circuit court erred by admitting into evidence a
bullet found at the unsecured crime scene nine days after the murder.  We affirm.

FACTS

On October 28, 2001, a shooting incident took place
at the home of Patricia Parris (“Parris”) that resulted in her death.  According
to Parris’s daughters, eleven year-old Deann Wilson (“Deann”) and fourteen year-old
Janice Wilson (“Janice”), Seich was drinking liquor when they arrived home that
evening with their mother.  Deann testified Parris and Seich began arguing and
Seich pushed Parris and pulled her by the hair.   Parris placed a call
to 911.   Deann testified she and Parris ran outside when Seich pulled
out a gun.  Janice was not able to exit the mobile home.   Janice testified
Seich pushed her back into the mobile home, causing her to fall on the floor. 
Deann stated after she and Parris ran outside, “the police pulled up and he
[Seich] shot Momma.”

When Officers Kevin Carper (“Carper”)
and Jeremy Soukup (“Soukup”) arrived at the scene, they observed Parris and
Seich on the front porch.  Soukup testified he “heard two, sounded like a cannon
to me, shots at point blank range, which I mean is less than a foot, and Mrs.
Parris disappeared off that front porch.”  Soukup said he and Carper
drew fire at Seich to protect Parris and Deann.  Soukup and Carper both testified
they did not fire their weapons until Seich fired his gun and they saw Parris
fall.  Officer Carper accidentally shot Janice when he was firing at
Seich.   Janice testified after she and Seich were shot, he started saying
he loved her and was sorry he shot Parris.

The police used 9mm guns and Seich
used a .44 Magnum pistol.   When the SLED agents processed the crime scene on
the night of the shooting, they used a metal detector and found seventeen 9mm
cartridge casings outside.   Inside, they found Seich’s gun with four unfired
bullets and two fired cartridge casings, a .44 caliber fired cartridge casing,
and a fired projectile.  They also found a spent projectile from a .44 caliber
weapon in the dishwasher of an adjacent mobile home.

Nine days after the incident, one of the agents
returned to the scene, which had been unsecured since the shooting, and
found a spent .44 caliber bullet outside on the ground in the approximate location
where Parris’s body had been dragged.  The State offered the bullet into
evidence, and Seich moved to exclude it.  The trial judge allowed the bullet
into evidence, but limited the applicable testimony to the fact it was found
at the scene.

Dr. David Wren, the pathologist who performed the
autopsy on Parris, testified Parris died from a single gunshot wound to the
chest and the injury to the chest was more likely caused by a .44 caliber weapon
than a 9mm weapon.    

The jury convicted Seich of murder
and the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole.  Seich
appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court may not reverse the trial court’s
ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of discretion or the
commission of legal error that results in prejudice to the defendant. State
v. Gaster, 349 S.C. 545, 557, 564 S.E.2d 87, 93 (2002); State v. Adams,
354 S.C. 361, 377, 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App. 2003) (cert. pending). 
“An abuse of discretion occurs when the judge’s ruling has no evidentiary support.” 
State v. Manning, 329 S.C. 1, 7, 495 S.E.2d 191, 194 (1997).     

LAW/ANALYSIS

Seich argues the trial court erred
by admitting the bullet into evidence.  We find any error committed by the trial
court was harmless.

Seich contends the State failed to lay
a proper foundation to connect the bullet to the crime.  Furthermore, Seich
argues the introduction of the .44 caliber bullet invited speculation about
its connection to the shooting.   

Although it is troubling the bullet was found nine
days after the shooting, and from an unsecured crime scene, we find, even assuming
the trial court erred in allowing it into evidence, the error was harmless. 
“Error is harmless where it could not reasonably have affected the result of
the trial.”  Adams, 354 S.C. at 380, 580 S.E.2d at 795; State v. Burton,
326 S.C. 605, 610, 486 S.E.2d 762, 764 (Ct. App. 1997).  Appellate courts will
not set aside convictions due to insubstantial errors not affecting the result. 
State v. Sherard, 303 S.C. 172, 176, 399 S.E.2d 595, 597 (1991); State
v. Livingston, 282 S.C. 1, 6, 317 S.E.2d 129, 132 (1984).  “An insubstantial
error not affecting the result of the trial is harmless where ‘guilt has been
conclusively proven by competent evidence, such that no other rational conclusion
can be reached.’”  Adams, 354 S.C. at 380, 580 S.E.2d at 795 (quoting
State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989)).

Notwithstanding the admission of the bullet, the
State presented abundant evidence proving Seich’s guilt.  For example, Deann
testified she saw Seich shoot her mother.   Janice also testified Seich
said he was sorry he shot her mother.  Officers Soukup and Carper testified
they did not begin firing until they saw Parris fall.  

In addition, the pathologist’s testimony regarding
the gunshot wounds provides evidence of Seich’s guilt.  He testified the fatal
wound to Parris’s chest was approximately .41 inches by .60 inches in diameter. 
The diameter of a 9mm bullet is .354 inches, whereas the diameter of a .44 caliber
bullet is .44 inches.  Based on the size of Parris’s wound, the pathologist
determined it was more likely caused by the larger .44 caliber bullet.   Because
Seich was using a .44 caliber weapon and the officers were using 9mm weapons,
the pathologist’s testimony is strong evidence proving Seich’s guilt.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above evidence of Seich’s guilt, we find
any error committed by the trial court in admitting the .44 caliber bullet into
evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Allowing the bullet into evidence
did not result in any prejudice to Seich.  Accordingly, the decision of the
trial judge is

AFFIRMED.

GOOLSBY and ANDERSON, JJ., and CURETON, AJ., concur.