State v. Hobart

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.

Timothy George Hobart, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001052

Appeal From Spartanburg County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-372
Submitted May 1, 2016 – Filed July 20, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine Haggard Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General William M. Blitch, both of Columbia;
and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of Spartanburg, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Varvil, 338 S.C. 335, 340, 526 S.E.2d 248, 251 (Ct. App. 2000)
("A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is within the court's sound
discretion and will not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State
v. Colden, 372 S.C. 428, 435, 641 S.E.2d 912, 917 (Ct. App. 2007) ("An abuse of
discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary
support or are controlled by an error of law."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378,
580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A trial [court]'s decision regarding the
comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed
only in exceptional circumstances."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant,
evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice . . . ."); State v. Gray, 408 S.C. 601, 609-10, 759 S.E.2d
160, 165 (Ct. App. 2014) ("'Probative' means '[t]ending to prove or disprove.'"
(alteration by court) (quoting Probative, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009)));
id. at 610, 759 S.E.2d at 165 ("'Probative value' is the measure of the importance of
that tendency to the outcome of a case. It is the weight that a piece of relevant
evidence will carry in helping the trier of fact decide the issues."); S.C. Code Ann.
§ 16-11-510 (2015) ("It is unlawful for a person to wilfully and maliciously cut,
shoot, maim, wound, or otherwise injure or destroy any horse, mule, cattle, hog,
sheep, goat, or any other kind, class, article, or description of personal property, or
the goods and chattels of another."); Willful, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014) (defining "willful" as "[v]oluntary and intentional, but not necessarily
malicious"); Malicious, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining
"malicious" as "[s]ubstantially certain to cause injury" or "[w]ithout just cause or
excuse"); State v. Gilchrist, 329 S.C. 621, 630, 496 S.E.2d 424, 429 (Ct. App.
1998) ("Unfair prejudice does not mean the damage to a defendant's case that
results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather it refers to
evidence which tends to suggest decision on an improper basis." (quoting United
States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th Cir. 1993))).

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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