State v. McAbee

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 Scott McAbee, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-001528

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-250
Submitted January 1, 2016 – Filed June 8, 2016

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Laura Ruth Baer, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Megan Harrigan Jameson, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Joe Barnette, of
Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Scott McAbee appeals his conviction and sentence for
carjacking, arguing the trial court erred by allowing the victim to testify (1) he used
to own a construction company in Michigan; (2) his business was affected by the
housing crisis, which left Detroit bankrupt; (3) he relocated "for a better life" and a
construction job in the Cliff's community; (4) South Carolina appealed to him
because of the "basis of Christianity here" and "seemed like a peaceful place to
live"; (5) he and his family are strong believers in Jesus Christ; (6) his construction
work at the Cliffs 'feel [sic] apart' between 2008 and 2010; (7) he filed bankruptcy;
(8) he has now moved to Wyoming to manage a drilling operation; and (9) he is
making preparations to move his family from Spartanburg. McAbee also argues
the trial court erred by allowing an eyewitness to testify (1) her ten-year-old son
was in the car with her, crying and begging her to leave; (2) her husband is
deceased; (3) she relocated to South Carolina from Rhode Island five years prior;
(4) her relocation was economically related and "for a better life"; and (5) she has
no other children.1 We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: Rule 402, SCRE ("All relevant evidence is admissible, except as
otherwise provided . . . ."); Rule 401, SCRE ("'Relevant evidence' means evidence
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence."); S.C. Dep't of Highways & Pub. Transp. v. E.S.I. Invs., 332
S.C. 490, 495, 505 S.E.2d 593, 596 (1998) ("It is a routine practice in trials for an
attorney to ask his witness certain preliminary questions which may not be relevant
to the issues being litigated, which may go beyond mere identification and which
are designed to show that the witness will be somewhat credible or not biased in
favor of the side calling him . . . . These questions give the jury some knowledge of
the individual and a more complete perspective in considering his testimony."
(quoting City of Baltimore v. Zell, 367 A.2d 14, 17 (Md. 1977))).2

1
To the extent McAbee argues the probative value of the testimony is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403, SCRE, we find that
argument is unpreserved. See State v. Jarrell, 350 S.C. 90, 102 n.5, 564 S.E.2d
362, 369 n.5 (Ct. App. 2002) (recognizing issues not raised and ruled upon in the
trial court will not be considered on appeal).
2
Even if the trial court had erred by admitting the testimony, we find any error
would be harmless. See State v. Stokes, 339 S.C. 154, 159, 528 S.E.2d 430, 432
(Ct. App. 2000) ("Even if the evidence is not relevant, its admission may constitute
harmless error if the irrelevant evidence did not affect the outcome of the trial.");
State v. Bailey, 298 S.C. 1, 5, 377 S.E.2d 581, 584 (1989) ("When guilt has been
conclusively proven by competent evidence such that no other rational conclusion
can be reached, the [c]ourt should not set aside a conviction because of
insubstantial errors not affecting the result.").
AFFIRMED.3

HUFF, A.C.J., and WILLIAMS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

3
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.