State v. Moses

CourtListener 10153595Scctapp30 de ago. de 2010

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

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.

George Moses, Appellant.

Appeal From Orangeburg County

 James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-394

Submitted August 2, 2010 – Filed August
30, 2010

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for
Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr.,  of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George
Moses was convicted of voluntary
manslaughter and armed robbery.  The trial court sentenced him to
life imprisonment.  On appeal, Moses argues the trial court denied him his Fifth
Amendment right to counsel by admitting a written statement he gave the police
after he invoked his right to counsel.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the
trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.  An abuse
of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack
evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.") (citation
omitted); State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 201, 391 S.E.2d 244,
247 (1990) (holding the admission of improper evidence is harmless when
evidence is merely cumulative to other evidence); State v. Jarrell, 350
S.C. 90, 100-01, 564 S.E.2d 362, 368 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding harmless error
when the statement was almost identical to the testimony of three witnesses at
trial).  

AFFIRMED.

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

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

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.