State v. Ottey

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.

Aurelio Vincent
Ottey, Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

L. Casey Manning, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-290

Heard June 7, 2011 – Filed June 14, 2011   

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant
Attorney General Melody Brown, and Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson; all of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Aurelio Vincent Ottey appeals his conviction for
murder and sentence of life imprisonment after a trial by jury, arguing the
trial court erred in:  (1) qualifying an officer as an expert in cell phone
investigation; (2) refusing to allow cross-examination of a witness to show
bias or motive to misrepresent pursuant to Rule 608(c), SCRE; and (3) finding
evidence Ottey helped pay for the decedent's abortion inadmissible.  We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.  As to Issue 1:  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."); State v. Holder, 382 S.C. 278, 288, 676 S.E.2d 690,
696 (2009) ("The admission or exclusion of testimonial evidence falls
within the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be
disturbed on appeal absent abuse resulting in prejudice."). 
Alternatively, even if we were to find error, we find such error harmless.  See State v. Byers, Op. No. 26976 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 23, 2011)
(Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 17 at 23) ("Where guilt has been conclusively
proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion can be
reached, an insubstantial error that does not affect the result of the trial is
considered harmless.").  As to Issue 2:  State v. Johnson, 338 S.C.
114, 124-25, 525 S.E.2d 519, 524 (2000) (stating absent an abuse of discretion,
an appellate court will not disturb a trial court's ruling concerning the scope
of cross-examination of a witness to test credibility or to show possible bias
or self-interest in testifying).  As to Issue 3:  Rule 403, SCRE (stating
relevant evidence may be excluded by the trial court if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.).

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
PIEPER, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.