State v. Graham

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.

Albert Graham, Appellant.

Appeal From Saluda County

William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-247

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed May 28, 2009

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney
General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior
Assistant Attorney Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald
V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Albert Graham appeals his conviction and
sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, arguing the
trial court erred in admitting a photograph of the alleged crime scene where a
witness testified the photographs did not truly or accurately represent the
scene as it existed on the date of the accident.  In this case, the alleged
incident occurred inside a trailer, with a portion of the event taking place on
a couch.  The State introduced pictures of the interior of the trailer to
corroborate the victim’s testimony. The victim testified the photographs
accurately reflected the layout of the trailer, but did not depict the inside
of the trailer as it was on the date of the assault because the couches had
been replaced.  In explanation, the victim testified the couch in the
photograph was about the same size as the original couch. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 167, 478 S.E.2d
260, 266 (1996) (stating "If [] photographs serve to corroborate
testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit them," and "[a]
photograph should be excluded only if it is calculated to arouse the jury's
sympathy or prejudice or is irrelevant or unnecessary to substantiate
facts.") (citations omitted); State v. Campbell, 259 S.C. 339, 344,
191 S.E.2d 770, 773 (1972) ("Even as one who saw the scene is
permitted from memory to describe it verbally, he is usually permitted to
describe it using a photograph which he can identify."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT,
WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.        

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