State v. Moultrie

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.

Antonio
Moultrie, Appellant.

Appeal From Charleston County

G. Edward Welmaker, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-543 

Submitted November 1, 2011 – Filed
December 5, 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 Donald J.
Zelenka, and Assistant Attorney General Alphonso Simon, Jr., all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Scarlett A. Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Antonio Moultrie appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the
circuit court erred in admitting portions of a recording of a 911 call made by
the victim just after being stabbed.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004) (finding
the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment bars "admission of
testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was
unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for
cross-examination"); Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006)
("Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation
under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the
interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing
emergency."); Rule 803, SCRE ("The following are not excluded by the
hearsay rule . . . (1) Present Sense Impression.  A statement describing or
explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the
event or condition, or immediately thereafter; (2) Excited Utterance.  A
statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant
was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.").    

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J.,
THOMAS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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