State v. Holt

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.

Quentin Holt, Appellant.

Appeal from Georgetown County

Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-253

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 25,
2012 

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Tristan M. Shaffer and
Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, both of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Quentin Holt appeals his
convictions of two counts of distribution of crack cocaine, arguing the trial
court erred in admitting expert testimony because the instrument used in
forming the expert's opinion was unreliable.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: 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. White,
382 S.C. 265, 269, 676 S.E.2d 684, 686 (2009) ("A trial court's decision
to admit or exclude expert testimony will not be reversed absent a prejudicial
abuse of discretion."); id. at 270, 676 S.E.2d at 686 ("All
expert testimony must satisfy the Rule 702 criteria, and that includes the
trial court's gatekeeping function in ensuring the proposed expert testimony
meets a reliability threshold for the jury's ultimate consideration."); State
v. Jones, 343 S.C. 562, 572, 541 S.E.2d 813, 818 (2001) (holding scientific
evidence is admissible under Rule 702, SCRE, if the trial court determines the
underlying science is reliable after applying the factors set forth in State
v. Jones, 273 S.C. 723, 259 S.E.2d 120 (1979)); Jones, 343 S.C. at
573, 541 S.E.2d at 819 (holding one of the Jones reliability factors
taken into consideration is the quality control procedures used to ensure
reliability).

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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