State v. Oliver

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.

Stanley Rasheem
Oliver, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-553

Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed
December 21, 2010

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney
General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Solicitor
Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Stanley
Rasheem Oliver appeals his convictions and sentence of life imprisonment for
three counts of murder, two counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, and
first-degree burglary.  Oliver argues the trial court erred in admitting into
evidence the witness's signed, written statement when the witness remembered
giving a statement but denied the substance of the statement.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule  220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities:  State v. Blalock, 357 S.C. 74, 80, 591
S.E.2d 632, 636 (Ct. App. 2003) ("[A] witness's failure to fully recall
her prior statement has been found to be a sufficient denial to allow extrinsic
evidence . . . for otherwise the witness might in every such case exclude
evidence of what he has done or said by answering that he did not
remember."); State v. Miller, 262 S.C. 369, 371, 204 S.E.2d 738, 738-39 (1974)
(holding witness's prior inconsistent statement was admissible where witness
admitted signing the statement but failed to remember the incriminating
statements about the defendant); State v. Carmack, 388 S.C. 190, 201, 694 S.E.2d 224, 229 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding
admission of prior inconsistent statement "must be unequivocal").  

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.

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