State v. Golson

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.

Eddie Clay
Golson, Appellant.

Appeal From Lexington County

R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-246

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed April 25,
2012   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, 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 Deputy Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Eddie Clay Golson appeals his convictions
of first-degree burglary and possession of a weapon during a violent crime,
arguing the circuit court erred in admitting blood evidence when the State
failed to establish a sufficient chain of custody.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Jennings, 394
S.C. 473, 477, 716 S.E.2d 91, 93 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the
[circuit] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."
(quotation marks omitted)); State v. Sweet, 374 S.C. 1, 6, 647 S.E.2d
202, 205 (2007) ("[A] party offering into evidence fungible items such as
drugs or blood samples must establish a complete chain of custody as far as
practicable."); id. at 7, 647 S.E.2d at 206 ("Testimony from
each custodian of fungible evidence, however, is not a prerequisite to
establishing a chain of custody sufficient for admissibility."); State
v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 95, 708 S.E.2d 750, 755 (2011) ("The State
need not establish the identity of every person handling fungible items in all
circumstances; rather, the standard is whether, in the discretion of the [circuit
court], the State has established the chain of custody as far as practicable.  This
determination will necessarily depend on the unique factual circumstances of
each case.").

AFFIRMED.

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

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