State v. 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 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Brian Sims, Appellant.

Appeal From Cherokee County

 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-094

Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed
February 23, 2009   

AFFIRMED

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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant
Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia and Solicitor Harold W.
Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: 
Brian Sims appeals his assault and battery with intent to kill conviction and
fifteen-year sentence arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to
improperly vouch for a witness.  We
affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Matthews v.
State, 350 S.C. 272, 276, 565 S.E.2d 766, 768 (2002). (“Vouching for a witness based on outside material
conveys the impression to the jury that the solicitor has evidence not
presented to the jury but known by the prosecution which supports conviction.”); State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 630, 545 S.E.2d 805, 818 (2001) (finding
the State improperly vouches for a witness by placing “the government’s
prestige behind a witness by making explicit personal assurances of a witness’[s]
veracity, or where a prosecutor implicitly vouches for a witness’[s] veracity
by indicating information not presented to the jury supports the testimony”); State
v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 630, 545 S.E.2d 805, 818 (2001) (holding the State
did not vouch for a witness by mentioning a plea agreement’s provision
requiring the witness tell the truth  when the State neither implied special
knowledge or guaranteed veracity of the testimony).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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