State v. James

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.

Thomas James, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002326

Appeal From Horry County
Steven H. John, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-430
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed October 19, 2016

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and
Assistant Attorney General Caroline M. Scrantom, all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Jimmy A. Richardson, II, of
Conway, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities: State v. Black, 400 S.C. 10, 16, 732 S.E.2d 880, 884 (2012) ("In
criminal cases, an appellate court sits to review only errors of law, and it is bound
by the trial court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous."); State v.
Vang, 353 S.C. 78, 83-84, 577 S.E.2d 225, 227 (Ct. App. 2003) ("The admission or
rejection of testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial [court] and will not
be overturned absent a showing of abuse of discretion, legal error, and prejudice to
the appellant."); State v. McEachern, 399 S.C. 125, 137, 731 S.E.2d 604, 610 (Ct.
App. 2012) ("As well, the scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of
the trial court, and the court's decision will not be reversed on appeal absent a
showing of prejudice."); State v. Hawes, 411 S.C. 188, 191, 767 S.E.2d 707, 708
(2015) ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling is based on an
error of law or, when grounded in factual conclusions, is without evidentiary
support." (quoting Black, 400 S.C. at 16, 732 S.E.2d at 884)); McEachern, 399
S.C. at 137, 731 S.E.2d at 610 ("When a party introduces evidence about a
particular matter, the other party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or
rebuttal thereof, even if the latter evidence would have been incompetent or
irrelevant had it been offered initially."); State v. Inman, 395 S.C. 539, 557, 720
S.E.2d 31, 41 (2011) (providing a prosecuting attorney is competent to testify and
may do so when necessary under the circumstances of a case, subject to the
discretion of the trial court); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986)
("[T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is
concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on
concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues,
the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant.").

AFFIRMED.1

LOCKEMY, C.J., and KONDUROS and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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