State v. Lee

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.

William Andrew
Lee, Appellant.

Appeal From Spartanburg County

Thomas A. Russo, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-369 

Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed July 14,
2011

AFFIRMED

Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L.
Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W.
Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Brendan J. McDonald, all of Columbia, and
Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: William Andrew Lee was tried and convicted for the
murder and attempted armed robbery of Harvey Wells at a car wash in Spartanburg
County in 2008.  Lee contends the trial court committed reversible error by
allowing a police officer to testify that Wells told him "two people"
were involved in the shooting and attempted robbery because this evidence was
inadmissible hearsay, not a dying declaration.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1),
SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Crocker, 366 S.C. 394, 408, 621 S.E.2d 890, 897 (Ct. App. 2005) ("The
admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the sound discretion of
the trial court and [,] absent clear abuse, will not be disturbed on
appeal."); Rule 804(b)(2), SCRE (stating an exception to the hearsay rule
exists "[i]n a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or
proceeding," when the declarant's statement was made "while believing
that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances
of what the declarant believed to be impending death."); State v.
McHoney, 344 S.C. 85, 93, 544 S.E.2d 30, 33 (2001)  ("A declarant does
not have to express, in direct terms, his awareness of his condition for his
statement to be admissible as a dying declaration. The necessary state of mind
can be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the
declaration."). 

AFFIRMED. 

SHORT,
KONDUROS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

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