State v. Means

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.

Michael Tirrell Means, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2021-000752

Appeal From Edgefield County
Debra R. McCaslin, Circuit Court Judge,

Unpublished Opinion No. 2023-UP-352
Submitted October 2, 2023 – Filed November 1, 2023

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Sarah Elizabeth Shipe, of Columbia,
for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
Assistant Attorney General Tommy Evans, Jr., all of
Columbia; and Solicitor Samuel R. Hubbard, III, of
Lexington, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Michael Tirrell Means appeals his convictions for murder and
possession of a weapon during a violent crime and his life sentence. On appeal,
Means argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting graphic photographs
of the victim at the scene and an autopsy photograph. We affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photographs
because the photographs corroborated witness testimony, illustrated the
circumstances of the crime, were relevant to rebut Means's defense that he acted
without malice, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the
risk of unfair prejudice. See State v. Wallace, 440 S.C. 537, 541–42, 892 S.E.2d
310, 312 (2023) ("We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on an evidence question
unless we find the court abused its discretion, or . . . unless we find the trial court
has not acted within the discretion we grant to trial courts. . . . [A] trial court acts
outside of its discretion when the ruling is not supported by the evidence or is
controlled by an error of law."); State v. Collins, 409 S.C. 524, 534, 763 S.E.2d 22,
27 (2014) ("The relevancy, materiality, and admissibility of photographs as
evidence are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court." (quoting State v.
Nance, 320 S.C. 501, 508, 466 S.E.2d 349, 353 (1996))); id. at 534, 763 S.E.2d at
28 ("A trial judge's decision regarding the comparative probative value and
prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in exceptional
circumstances." (quoting State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794
(Ct. App. 2003))); State v. Gilchrist, 329 S.C. 621, 627, 496 S.E.2d 424, 427 (Ct.
App. 1998) ("Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest [a] decision on
an improper basis."); State v. Torres, 390 S.C. 618, 623, 703 S.E.2d 226, 228
(2010) ("Photographs calculated to arouse the sympathy or prejudice of the jury
should be excluded if they are irrelevant or not necessary to substantiate material
facts or conditions."); id. at 623, 703 S.E.2d at 229 ("[A]utopsy photographs may
be presented to the jury in an effort to show the circumstances of the crime and
character of the defendant."); State v. Nelson, 440 S.C. 413, 423, 891 S.E.2d 508,
513 (2023) ("[P]hotos should not be excluded on the ground they were gruesome
when the photos were 'highly probative, corroborative, and material in establishing
the elements of the offenses charged.'" (quoting Collins, 409 S.C. at 535, 763
S.E.2d at 28)); State v. Heyward, Op. No. 28182 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Oct. 5, 2023)
(Howard Adv. Sh. No. 40 at 11, 24-26) (affirming the admission of autopsy
photographs when the photographs illustrated a contested point at trial).
AFFIRMED. 1

THOMAS, KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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