State v. Reilly

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Kevin Reilly, Appellant.

Appeal From Greenville County

 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-095

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 23, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, and Thomas M.
Creech, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Kevin Reilly appeals his convictions and sentences for kidnapping, possession
of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, conspiracy, and assault
and battery with intent to kill.  Reilly maintains the trial court erred in
allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 404(b),
SCRE (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the
character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.  It may,
however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common
scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.”); State v.
Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (“If there is any
evidence to support the admission of the bad act evidence, the trial [court’s]
ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.”); State v. Jenkins, 322 S.C.
414, 416, 472 S.E.2d 251, 252 (1996) (allowing evidence under the common plan
or scheme exception where a close degree of similarity or connection existed between
the bad act and the crime charged which enhanced the probative value of the
evidence).

AFFIRMED.

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

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