State v. Phipps

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.

Robert J.
Phipps, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Roger L. Couch, Special Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-018

Heard December 7, 2011 – Filed January 25,
2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief
Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Robert Phipps appeals his murder
conviction and sentence.  He contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss and in excluding testimony regarding an anonymous tip.  We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the
trial court erred in denying Phipps's motion to dismiss: State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 538-39, 552 S.E.2d 300, 307 (2001) (requiring a
defendant seeking dismissal based on loss of evidence prove either (1) the
State destroyed the evidence in bad faith or (2) the evidence possessed an
exculpatory value apparent before the evidence was destroyed and the defendant
cannot obtain other evidence of comparable value by other means).

2.  As to whether the
trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding an anonymous tip: Rule 804(b)(2), SCRE (providing that, in order for
statement made under belief of impending death to qualify for exception to rule
excluding hearsay, declarant must have made statement while believing his death
was imminent); Rule 804(b)(3), SCRE (providing that, in order for statement
against interest to qualify for exception to rule excluding hearsay, statement
must have so far tended to subject declarant to criminal liability that no
reasonable person in declarant's position would have made statement unless he
believed it was true); State v. Kinloch, 338 S.C. 385, 389, 526 S.E.2d
705, 707 (2000) (holding statement tending to expose declarant to criminal
liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the statement was actually made); State
v. Burgess, 391 S.C. 15, 22, 703 S.E.2d 512, 516 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding defendant's
right to present complete defense was not violated when the trial court
correctly excluded evidence under valid evidence rule).

AFFIRMED.

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