State v. Clark

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

In The Court of Appeals

The State,       
Respondent,

v.

Matthew A. Clark,       
Appellant.

Appeal From Horry County

Paul M .Burch, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-097

Submitted November 20, 2002 – Filed
February 4, 2003

AFFIRMED

Assistant Appellate Defender Eleanor Duffy Cleary, of Columbia,
for appellant.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson,
all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Matthew
A. Clark was convicted of homicide by child abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment. 
During an in camera hearing, Clark moved to have photographs of the victim
suppressed because their prejudicial effect was outweighed by their probative
value.  The trial court denied the motion and admitted the photographs into
evidence over Clark’s subsequent objection.  Clark appeals. We affirm.

ISSUE

Clark argues the trial court erred in admitting
photographs of the victim because their prejudicial effect outweighed their
probative value.  We disagree.

FACTS

During the course of the trial, the State sought
to introduce photographs of the three-year-old victim, Courtney Frizzell, depicting
her various external injuries and cause of death, repeated internal head trauma
from being shaken.  After an in camera hearing, Clark moved to have all
of the photographs suppressed, asserting their probative value was outweighed
by the prejudicial effect.  The trial court denied Clark’s motion, and allowed
the State to introduce the photographs over Clark’s subsequent objection.  Clark
was convicted of homicide by child abuse and sentenced to life imprisonment.

DISCUSSION

“The relevancy, materiality, and admissibility
of photographs as evidence are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial
court.”  State v. Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 508, 466 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1996). 
A trial court’s ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence will not be reversed
on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.  State v. Hamilton, 344
S.C. 344, 353, 543 S.E.2d 586, 591 (Ct. App. 2001)  Moreover, a trial court’s
ruling regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence
is given great deference and will be “reversed only in ‘exceptional circumstances.’” 
Id. at 357, 543 S.E.2d at 593 (quoting United States v. Green,
887 F.2d 25, 27 (1st Cir. 1989)).

In the present case, the photographs at issue were
introduced to corroborate the testimony of Dr. Joel Cochran and Dr. Susan McConnell,
who testified regarding the various injuries inflicted on the victim, including
the repeated internal head trauma from shaking that caused her death.  Furthermore,
the photographs were relevant to prove that the child was abused, that the abuse
was her cause of death, and that the abuse manifested an extreme indifference
to human life, all of which are elements of homicide by child abuse.  See
S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-85(A)(1) (Supp. 2001) (stating a person commits homicide
by child abuse when that person causes the death of a child less than eleven
years old while committing abuse in circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference
to human life).  Moreover, we have reviewed the photographs and agree with the
trial court’s finding that they were not unduly prejudicial to Clark.

Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting the photographs.  See Nance, 320 S.C. at 508, 466
S.E.2d at 353 (holding the trial court did not err in admitting photographs
during trial, which; 1) corroborated testimony regarding the various places
in which the victim was stabbed; 2) corroborated testimony indicating the likelihood
the victim died from the stab wounds; 3) were used to show malice, an element
of the crime charged; and 4) were later reviewed by the supreme court and found
not to be unduly prejudicial to the defendant).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Clark’s conviction for
homicide by child abuse is

AFFIRMED. [1]

CONNOR, STILWELL, and HOWARD, JJ., concur.

[1] Because oral argument would not aid the Court in
resolving any issue on appeal, we decide this case without oral argument pursuant
to Rule 215, SCACR.