State v. Spann

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.

James Keion
Spann, Appellant.

Appeal From Lee County

R. Ferrell Cothran, Jr., Circuit Court
Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2012-UP-207

Submitted March 1, 2012 – Filed March 28,
2012

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant,
of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy
Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka,
and Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia;
and Solicitor Ernest A. Finney, III, of Sumter, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: James Keion Spann appeals his convictions of murder,
first-degree burglary, and possession of a weapon during a violent crime,
arguing the trial court erred in admitting his statement because it was
unfairly prejudicial as it made him appear guilty, although he was referring to
an outstanding bench warrant and not to murder.  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." (citations omitted)); State v. Martucci, 380 S.C. 232, 251,
669 S.E.2d 598, 608 (Ct. App. 2008) ("Relevant evidence may be excluded if
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice." (citing Rule 403, SCRE)); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361,
378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) (noting the appellate court's
obligation to give great deference to the trial court's decision regarding the
comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence, a decision
which should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances).

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS,
THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.

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