State v. Darrell D. Wilson, Jr.

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.

Darrell D. Wilson, Jr., Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-000783

Appeal From York County
J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2024-UP-376
Submitted October 1, 2024 – Filed November 6, 2024

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Jessica M. Saxon, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson and Assistant
Attorney General Andrew Douglas Powell, both of
Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York,
all for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Darrell D. Wilson, Jr., appeals his conviction for inflicting great
bodily injury upon a child and his sentence of eighteen years' imprisonment. On
appeal, Wilson argues the trial court abused its discretion by excluding Marjorie
Rogers's proffered testimony because (1) the trial court failed to conduct an
on-the-record balancing test pursuant to Rule 403 of the South Carolina Rules of
Evidence, (2) the testimony was relevant and the probative value was not
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the State, and (3) the
testimony was a proper lay witness opinion. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b),
SCACR.

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Rogers's proffered
testimony. See State v. Douglas, 369 S.C. 424, 429-30, 632 S.E.2d 845, 847-48
(2006) ("The admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter addressed to the sound
discretion of the trial court and its ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of a
manifest abuse of discretion accompanied by probable prejudice. An abuse of
discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary
support or are controlled by an error of law."). Initially, we find the trial court
conducted a Rule 403 balancing test on the record. See State v. King, 349 S.C.
142, 156-57, 561 S.E.2d 640, 647 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding the trial court's brief
discussion of the fairness of trial testimony without ever mentioning the Rule 403
balancing test was sufficient as "some indicia of [the court's] consideration of
whether admission of the testimony was fair" and stating that a conviction should
not be reversed "if the trial judge's comments concerning the matter indicate he
was cognizant of the evidentiary rule when admitting the evidence"). Additionally,
although the evidence was relevant, we hold the probative value of the testimony
was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. While the
testimony was probative of whether Wilson intentionally harmed Minor, we hold
Rogers's testimony was unfairly prejudicial due to its likelihood to invite a decision
on an improper basis because Rogers was not present at the scene and her
testimony was based on her own feelings. See 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 . . . ."); State v. Gray, 408 S.C. 601,
610, 759 S.E.2d 160, 165 (Ct. App. 2014) ("The more essential the evidence, the
greater its probative value." (quoting United States v. Stout, 509 F.3d 796, 804 (6th
Cir. 2007))); id. ("The evaluation of probative value cannot be made in the
abstract, but should be made in the practical context of the issues at stake in the
trial of each case."); State v. Lee, 399 S.C. 521, 529, 732 S.E.2d 225, 229 (Ct. App.
2012) (stating that unfair prejudice "refers to evidence which tends to suggest a
decision on an improper basis" (quoting State v. Collins, 398 S.C. 197, 207, 727
S.E.2d, 751, 757 (Ct. App. 2012))); State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 7, 545 S.E.2d 827,
830 (2001) ("Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it has an undue tendency to suggest
a decision on an improper basis, such as an emotional one."). Having found the
trial court conducted a Rule 403 balancing test on the record and determined the
probative value of Marjorie Rogers's testimony was substantially outweighed by
the danger of unfair prejudice, a dispositive issue in this case, we decline to reach
Wilson's remaining argument. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown,
Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (ruling an appellate court need
not address remaining issues when its resolution of a prior issue is dispositive).

AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, HEWITT, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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