State v. Watson

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.

Christopher Watson, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2011-184487

Appeal From Kershaw County
G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-134
Heard March 5, 2013 – Filed April 3, 2013

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Breen Richard Stevens of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, and
Solicitor Daniel E. Johnson, all of Columbia, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Christopher Watson appeals his murder conviction, arguing the
trial court erred in (1) admitting into evidence a graphic photograph of the victim
because its probative value was substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and
(2) allowing testimony indicating Watson threatened a witness. We affirm
pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting a photograph of the victim into
evidence: State v. Salley, 398 S.C. 160, 168-69, 727 S.E.2d 740, 744 (2012) ("The
admission or exclusion of evidence is an action within the discretion of the [trial]
court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); Rule
403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice."); Salley, 398 S.C. at
169, 727 S.E.2d at 745 (stating there is no abuse of discretion if the offered
photograph serves to corroborate testimony); State v. Edwards, 194 S.C. 410, 410,
10 S.E.2d 587, 588 (1940) (finding photograph depicting the presence of maggots
in and around the murder victim's body was properly admitted).

2. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning an alleged
threat: State v. Lewis, 293 S.C. 107, 110, 359 S.E.2d 66, 67-68 (1987) ("[I]f an out-
of-court statement is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and is
otherwise competent, it is admissible."); State v. Edwards, 383 S.C. 66, 72, 678
S.E.2d 405, 408, (2009) (noting "witness intimidation evidence, if linked to the
defendant, may be admitted to show a consciousness of guilt"); State v. Adams,
354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785 (Ct. App. 2003) (noting we "are obligated to
give great deference to the trial court's judgment").

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

AFFIRMED.