State v. Irby

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.

James Irby, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2012-213028

Appeal From Spartanburg County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-021
Submitted November 1, 2014 – Filed January 14, 2015

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Julie Kate Keeney, both of Columbia,
for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Myers, 359 S.C. 40, 47, 596 S.E.2d 488, 492 (2004) ("On
appeal, the trial [court]'s ruling as to the voluntariness of [a] confession will not be
disturbed unless so erroneous as to constitute an abuse of discretion."); State v.
Goodwin, 384 S.C. 588, 601, 683 S.E.2d 500, 507 (Ct. App. 2009) ("An abuse of
discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary
support or are controlled by an error of law."); id. ("When seeking to introduce a
confession, the State must prove that the statement was voluntary . . . ."); id. ("The
test of voluntariness is whether a defendant's will was overborne by the
circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession."); State v. Von Dohlen, 322
S.C. 234, 244, 471 S.E.2d 689, 695 (1996) ("It is generally recognized that the
police may use some psychological tactics in eliciting a statement from a
suspect. . . . These ploys may play a part in the suspect's decision to confess, but so
long as that decision is a product of the suspect's own balancing of competing
considerations, the confession is voluntary." (alteration by court) (internal
quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.1

FEW, C.J., and KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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