State v. Daniels

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.

Jamal Marquis Daniels, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2017-000135

Appeal From Horry County
Larry B. Hyman, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2021-UP-234
Submitted April 1, 2021 – Filed June 23, 2021

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender David Alexander, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Senior
Assistant Deputy Attorney General William M. Blitch,
Jr., both of Columbia, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Jamal Marquis Daniels appeals his convictions for robbery and
first-degree assault and battery, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a
recording of a call to 911 and the 911 dispatch notes because they allegedly
contained inadmissible hearsay. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and
the following authorities:

1. We find no reversible error in the trial court's admission of the 911
recording. On the recording, there were statements that can be overheard made by
both the caller and the victims. Regarding the victims' statements, we find they
were admissible as excited utterances. See Rule 803(2), SCRE (providing an
exception to the hearsay rule for "[a] statement relating to a startling event or
condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by
the event or condition"). As to the caller's statements, we find no prejudice even if
the evidence was erroneously admitted. See State v. Sims, 387 S.C. 557, 564, 694
S.E.2d 9, 13 (2010) (agreeing with the appellant that certain challenged testimony
was inadmissible hearsay and finding the error harmless "in view of the
overwhelming evidence of guilt"); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212, 631 S.E.2d
262, 267 (2006) ("Generally, appellate courts will not set aside convictions due to
insubstantial errors not affecting the result."); id. ("Error is harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt where it did not contribute to the verdict obtained.").

2. We find no error in the trial court's admission of the dispatch notes. Daniels
did not object when the State offered the notes as business documents. Although
the trial court did not expressly rule it was admitting the notes on this basis, it
allowed the State to elicit trial testimony that would support the business records
exception to the hearsay rule. Thus, we affirm their admission under Rule 220(c),
SCACR, which provides "[t]he appellate court may affirm any ruling, order,
decision or judgment upon any ground(s) appearing in the Record on Appeal." See
S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-510 (2014) ("A record . . . shall, insofar as relevant, be
competent evidence if the custodian . . . testifies to its identity and the mode of its
preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business . . . and if, in the
opinion of the court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation
were such as to justify its admission."); Rule 803(6), SCRE (providing an
exception to the hearsay rule for records of regularly conducted activity).

AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

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