State v. Hayes

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.

Tyreek Dashawn Hayes, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001303

Appeal From Dillon County
Roger E. Henderson, Circuit Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-378
Submitted October 1, 2021 – Filed November 3, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Susan Barber Hackett, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., both
of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Tyreek Dashawn Hayes appeals his convictions for possession of
a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, kidnapping, and two counts of
attempted murder. On appeal, Hayes argues the trial court erred in admitting
hearsay under the excited utterance exception. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion because the record supports its finding that the statement was an excited
utterance. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265
(2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and
will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("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. Banda, 371 S.C. 245, 251, 639 S.E.2d 36,
39 (2006) ("[A]n appellate court is bound by the trial court's factual findings unless
they are clearly erroneous."); State v. Stahlnecker, 386 S.C. 609, 623, 690 S.E.2d
565, 573 (2010) ("Three elements must be met for a statement to be an excited
utterance: (1) the statement must relate to a startling event or condition; (2) the
statement must have been made while the declarant was under the stress of
excitement; and (3) the stress of excitement must be caused by the startling event
or condition."); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 94, 544 S.E.2d 30, 34 (2001) ("In
determining whether a statement falls within the excited utterance exception, a
court must consider the totality of the circumstances.").

AFFIRMED.1

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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