State v. Young

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.

Julian Young, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213006

Appeal From Orangeburg County
Edgar W. Dickson, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2014-UP-234
Heard June 4, 2014 – Filed June 18, 2014

AFFIRMED

Tara Dawn Shurling, of Law Office of Tara Dawn
Shurling, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and
Assistant Attorney General Kaycie Smith Timmons, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor David M. Pascoe, of
Summerville, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Julian Young appeals his conviction for murder, arguing the trial
court erred in admitting hearsay testimony concerning statements made by the
victim after he was shot. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities: State v. Hatcher, 392 S.C. 86, 91, 708 S.E.2d 750, 753
(2011) ("'The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and
will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.'" (quoting State v. Pagan, 369
S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006)); Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143,
1166 (2011) (holding a gunshot victim's statement to police was non-testimonial
and did not violate the Confrontation Clause when the police's "primary purpose
was simply to address what they perceived to be an ongoing emergency, and the
circumstances lacked any formality that would have alerted [the victim] to or
focused him on the possible future prosecutorial use of his statements"); State v.
Washington, 379 S.C. 120, 124, 665 S.E.2d 602, 604 (2008) ("A court must
consider the totality of the circumstances when determining whether a statement is
admissible under the excited utterance exception, and the determination is
generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court."); State v. Burdette, 335
S.C. 34, 43, 515 S.E.2d 525, 530 (1999) (holding the supreme court has generally
allowed as excited utterances statements made by the victim to the police
immediately following a physical attack); State v. McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 94-95,
544 S.E.2d 30, 34-35 (2001) (finding victim's statement to a nurse while she was
under the continuing stress of being stabbed in the abdomen and having her throat
cut was inherently reliable because the victim had no time to reflect on the event);
State v. Sims, 348 S.C. 16, 23 n.1, 558 S.E.2d 518, 522 n.1 (2002) (finding
declarant's statement in response to a question did not prevent his answer from
being an excited utterance).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, KONDUROS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.