State v. Geathers

CourtListener 10154718Scctapp2 mag 2012

Testo completo

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.

Craig Geathers, Appellant.

Appeal From Georgetown County

Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-259  

Submitted April 2, 2012 – Filed May 2,
2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A.
Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and
Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Craig Geathers appeals his convictions of armed
robbery and kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant
testimony.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR,
and the following authorities: State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 116,
716 S.E.2d 895, 903 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the
[trial] court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse
of that 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."); State v. Aleksey, 343
S.C. 20, 35-36, 538 S.E.2d 248, 256 (2000) (holding a statement that related to
the defendant's motive was relevant and, therefore, admissible); Rule 404(a),
SCRE (noting character evidence is inadmissible only when used for the purpose
of proving action in conformity therewith); State v. Sweat, 362 S.C.
117, 132, 606 S.E.2d 508, 516 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting a trial court is given
broad discretion in making a Rule 403, SCRE, determination). 

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.