State v. Ramirez

THIS OPINION HAS NO
PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY
PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Evelia Ramirez, Appellant.

Appeal From Saluda County

 James R. Barber, III, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-585

Submitted October 1, 2008 – Filed October
15, 2008

AFFIRMED

Deputy Chief Appellant Defender, Wanda H. Carter, South Carolina
Commission on Indigent Defense, Division of Appellate Defense, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,  Harold
M Coombs, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for
Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
In this criminal appeal, Evelia
Ramirez argues the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony
regarding the level of force needed to inflict the victim’s injuries because
the issue was a factual issue within the province of the jury.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 702, SCRE (“If
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness
qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”); State v.
White, 372 S.C. 364, 373, 642 S.E.2d 607, 611 (Ct. App. 2007) (cert.
granted, Nov. 19, 2007) (holding the trial court has the discretion to qualify
an expert witness and admit the expert’s testimony); Gooding v. St. Francis
Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 252-53, 487 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1997) (“To be
competent to testify as an expert, ‘a witness must have acquired by reason of
study or experience or both such knowledge and skill in a profession or science
that [s]he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the
particular subject of h[er] testimony.’”).

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
THOMAS, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.

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