State v. Paulette J. Sims

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.

Paulette J. Sims, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-001202

Appeal From Allendale County
Courtney Clyburn Pope, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-240
Submitted June 1, 2024 – Filed July 3, 2024

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Lara Mary Caudy, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Attorney General Melody J. Brown, and Assistant
Attorney General Tommy Evans, Jr., all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, of Bluffton, all
for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Paulette J. Sims appeals her convictions for two counts of
murder and one count of possession of a weapon during the commission of a
violent crime and her sentence of thirty-eight years' imprisonment. On appeal,
Sims argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting police officers'
in-car and body-worn camera footage and erred by denying Sims's motion to
suppress a buccal swab of her DNA. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

1. We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the in-car and
body-worn camera footage into evidence because the videos were relevant and
their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing
or misleading the jury. See State v. Phillips, 430 S.C. 319, 340, 844 S.E.2d 651,
662 (2020) ("We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude evidence under
a deferential standard for an abuse of discretion."); 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."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although
relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence."); State v. Huckabee, 419 S.C. 414, 423, 798
S.E.2d 584, 589 (Ct. App. 2017) ("A trial [court's] decision regarding the
comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed
only in exceptional circumstances. We review a trial court's decision regarding
Rule 403 pursuant to the abuse of discretion standard and are obligated to give
great deference to the trial court's judgment." (alteration in original) (quoting State
v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534, 763 S.E.2d 22, 28 (2014))); id. ("Unfair prejudice
means an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis." (quoting
State v. Lyles, 379 S.C. 328, 338, 665 S.E.2d 201, 206 (Ct. App. 2008))); State v.
Gray, 408 S.C. 601, 610, 759 S.E.2d 160, 165 (Ct. App. 2014) ("'Probative value'
is the measure of the importance of that tendency to the outcome of a case. It is the
weight that a piece of relevant evidence will carry in helping the trier of fact decide
the issues.").

2. We hold the trial court did not err by denying Sims's motion to suppress the
buccal swab because there was sufficient probable cause established in the search
warrant. See State v. Frasier, 437 S.C. 625, 633-34, 879 S.E.2d 762, 766 (2022)
("[A]ppellate review of a motion to suppress based on the Fourth Amendment
involves a two-step analysis. This dual inquiry means we review the trial court's
factual findings for any evidentiary support, but the ultimate legal conclusion . . . is
a question of law subject to de novo review."); State v. Davis, 354 S.C. 348, 355,
580 S.E.2d 778, 782 (Ct. App. 2003) (explaining that "[a] reviewing court should
give great deference to a magistrate's determination of probable cause"); State v.
Rodriquez, 323 S.C. 484, 490, 476 S.E.2d 161, 165 (Ct. App. 1996) ("Generally,
police seizures are per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth
Amendment unless such seizures are accomplished pursuant to judicial warrants
issued upon probable cause."); id. ("If no supplemental testimony is taken, a
magistrate's probable cause determination is limited to the four corners of the
search warrant affidavit."); State v. Baccus, 367 S.C. 41, 50, 625 S.E.2d 216, 221
(2006) (explaining under the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test for a probable
cause determination, "[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a
practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in
the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of
persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband
or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place" (quoting Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983))); S.C. Code Ann. § 17-13-140 (2014) (explaining
that in South Carolina, search warrants may be issued "only upon affidavit sworn
to before the magistrate . . . establishing the grounds for the warrant"); State v.
Chisholm, 395 S.C. 259, 267, 717 S.E.2d 614, 618 (Ct. App. 2011)
("Considerations for determining whether or not there exists probable cause to
permit the acquisition of [DNA] evidence include the following elements: (1)
probable cause to believe the suspect has committed the crime; (2) a clear
indication that relevant material evidence will be found; and (3) the method used to
secure it is safe and reliable."); Baccus, 367 S.C. at 54, 625 S.E.2d at 223
("Additional factors to be weighed are the seriousness of the crime and the
importance of the evidence to the investigation. The judge is required to balance
the necessity for acquiring involuntary nontestimonial identification evidence
against constitutional safeguards prohibiting unreasonable bodily intrusions,
searches, and seizures.").
AFFIRMED. 1

GEATHERS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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