State v. James L. Ginther

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.

James L. Ginther, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2019-000672

Appeal From Sumter County
R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-046
Submitted January 1, 2024 – Filed February 7, 2024

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
Senior Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Ernest Adolphus Finney, III,
of Sumter, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: James L. Ginther appeals his convictions for murder and
kidnapping, and sentence of life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, he
argues (1) the trial court erred in refusing to limit a forensic firearms examination
expert's opinion testimony to "consistencies" between test-fired shell cartridges
from Ginther's gun and a fired shell cartridge found at the crime scene, and (2) the
trial court erred in admitting irrelevant, confusing, and misleading still shots of a
car from a traffic camera in Columbia. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR.
1. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting opinion
testimony from a witness qualified as an expert in forensic firearms examination
that Ginther's gun fired a shell cartridge found at the crime scene. See State v.
Wallace, 440 S.C. 537, 541, 892 S.E.2d 310, 312 (2023) ("We review a trial court's
ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence—when the ruling is based on the
South Carolina Rules of Evidence—under an abuse of discretion standard."); State
v. Jones, 423 S.C. 631, 636, 817 S.E.2d 268, 270 (2018) ("A trial court's ruling on
the admissibility of expert testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion where the
ruling is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law."). Ginther
did not object to the expert's qualification or the reliability of the methodology
used to form the expert's opinion. See Rule 702, SCRE ("If scientific, technical, or
other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence
or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise."); Wallace, 440 S.C. at 544, 892 S.E.2d at 313 ("To admit expert
testimony under Rule 702, the proponent—in this case the State—must
demonstrate, and the trial court must find, the existence of three elements: 'the
evidence will assist the trier of fact, the expert witness is qualified, and the
underlying science is reliable.'" (quoting State v. Council, 335 S.C. 1, 20, 515
S.E.2d 508, 518 (1999))). With no challenge to the expert's qualification or
methodology, there was no reason to limit the expert's testimony to "consistencies"
between the fired shell cartridge found at the crime scene and the test-fired shell
cartridges from Ginther's gun. See State v. Hackett, 215 S.C. 434, 445, 55 S.E.2d
696, 701 (1949) (explaining that courts "allow the introduction of expert testimony
to show that the bullet which killed the deceased was fired from a particular pistol
or rifle . . . [if] the witness . . . is, by experience and training, qualified to give an
expert opinion in the field of ballistics.").1

1
To the extent Ginther argues the trial court erred by failing to conduct a hearing
on the reliability of the methodology used by the expert pursuant to Watson v. Ford
2. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting still shots from a
traffic camera video because the still shots were relevant and their probative value
was not substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury or confusing
the issues. See State v. Phillips, 430 S.C. 319, 340, 844 S.E.2d 651, 662 (2020)
("We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under a
deferential standard for an abuse of discretion."). The still shots showed a car
similar to Ginther's driving from the direction of Ginther's home towards Sumter—
where his ex-wife was later found deceased, at 12:51 a.m.—at a time that would
have corresponded with her early-morning murder. Therefore, the still shots were
relevant because they tended to show Ginther was travelling towards Sumter at a
crucial time. See Rule 401, SCRE ("'Relevant evidence' means evidence having
any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence."). Next, although their probative value was low due to the
still shots not showing any identifying characteristics of the car or its driver, their
risk of confusing the issues or misleading the jury was also low because the jury
had the ability to weigh the evidence and make conclusions about the identification
of the driver or car. See Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be
excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of . . .
confusion of the issues[] or misleading the jury . . . ."); State v. Gray, 438 S.C. 130,
144, 882 S.E.2d 469, 476 (Ct. App. 2022), cert. denied (Oct. 3, 2023) (holding the
danger of confusing or misleading the jury was limited despite the surveillance
video's low quality making it "difficult to discern what happened" because the jury
could replay the video as often as it needed). Thus, the danger of confusion of the
issues or misleading the jury did not substantially outweigh the still shots'
probative value.

AFFIRMED. 2

WILLIAMS, C.J., and HEWITT and VERDIN, JJ., concur.

Motor Co., 389 S.C. 434, 699 S.E.2d 169 (2010), and by failing to limit the
expert's testimony to "a reasonable degree of ballistic certainty," we hold these
issues are not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 5, 647
S.E.2d 202, 205 (2007) ("To properly preserve an issue for review there must be a
contemporaneous objection that is ruled upon by the trial court[.]"); Wilder Corp.
v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) ("[A]n objection must be
sufficiently specific to inform the trial court of the point being urged by the
objector.").
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.