State v. Myers

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.

Jerome Myers,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Richland County

James R. Barber, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2005-UP-088

Heard January 12, 2005 – Filed February
7, 2005

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Aileen P. Clare, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Appellant, Jerome Myers,
was indicted for and convicted of kidnapping and criminal sexual conduct in
the first degree.  The trial judge sentenced Myers to concurrent terms of twelve
years imprisonment on each conviction, consecutive to revocation of three years
of his probation.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR and the following
authorities:  State v. Wise, 359 S.C. 14, 21, 596 S.E.2d 475, 478 (2004)
(holding the admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the
sound discretion of the trial judge and his ruling will not be disturbed absent
a manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice); State
v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 5-6, 545
S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (holding in a criminal case the appellate court is bound
by the trial court’s preliminary factual findings in determining the admissibility
of certain evidence unless the findings are clearly erroneous, and its review
extends only to determining whether the trial judge abused his discretion);
State v. Boiter, 302 S.C. 381, 383-84, 396 S.E.2d 364, 365 (1990) (holding
in determining admissibility of evidence of a victim’s prior accusation, the
trial judge should (1) determine whether such accusation was false, (2) if the
prior allegation was false, consider remoteness in time of the prior accusation
to the present accusation and, (3) consider the factual similarity between
the prior and present allegations to determine relevancy). 

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, KITTREDGE, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.