State v. Rickey Dean Tate

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.

Rickey Dean Tate, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-001856

Appeal From York County
Jocelyn Newman, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-228
Submitted April 1, 2022 – Filed May 25, 2022

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Rickey Dean Tate appeals his conviction for possession with
intent to distribute (PWID) cocaine base and sentence of life imprisonment without
parole. On appeal, Tate argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting
testimony that he was on supervised release when he was arrested for the PWID
charge.

Because Tate opened the door by introducing the entire body camera footage to the
jury, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing limited testimony
through repetition of a statement disclosed in the footage that Tate was on
supervised release at the time of his arrest. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to
Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41,
48, 625 S.E.2d 216, 220 (2006) ("In criminal cases, the appellate court sits to
review errors of law only."); id. ("This Court is bound by the trial court's factual
findings unless they are clearly erroneous."); 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."); State v.
Page, 378 S.C. 476, 482, 663 S.E.2d 357, 360 (Ct. App. 2008) ("It is firmly
established that otherwise inadmissible evidence may be properly admitted when
opposing counsel opens the door to that evidence."); id. at 483, 663 S.E.2d at 360
("Whether a person opens the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible
evidence during the course of a trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
[court]."); Ellenburg v. State, 367 S.C. 66, 69, 625 S.E.2d 224, 226 (2006) ("Once
the defendant opens the door, the [State's] invited response is appropriate so long
as it is does not unfairly prejudice the defendant."); State v. Heyward, 426 S.C.
630, 637, 828 S.E.2d 592, 595 (2019) ("Testimony in response must be
'proportional and confined to the topics to which counsel ha[s] opened the door.'"
(quoting Bowman v. State, 422 S.C. 19, 42, 809 S.E.2d 232, 244 (2018))).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, C.J., and KONDUROS and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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