State v. McKenzie

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.

Marcus McKenzie, Appellant.

Appeal From Aiken County

Ralph F. Cothran, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-266

Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 2, 2009   

AFFIRMED

Appellate
Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, for Appellant.

Attorney
General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh,
Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney
General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan,
of Aiken, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Marcus
McKenzie was convicted of indecent exposure, sentenced to three years'
imprisonment, and required to register as a sex offender.  McKenzie appeals his
conviction and sentence, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of
a prior similar incident.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 404(b),
SCRE (holding evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts generally inadmissible
to prove the defendant's guilt for the crime charged, but recognizing an
exception to this rule where such evidence shows "motive, identity, the
existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or
intent"); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 211, 631 S.E.2d
262, 265, 267 (2006) (placing the admission of evidence within the
discretion of the trial court and indicating an abuse of discretion occurs when
the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are
controlled by an error of law; predicating admissibility of a prior bad act
upon its logical relation to the crime with which the defendant is charged;
establishing judicial procedure for evaluating admissibility of evidence of
prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), SCRE, and State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406,
416, 118 S.E. 803, 807 (1923); and holding prior bad act
evidence that otherwise qualifies for admission under an exception to the
general rule must be excluded if its probative value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant); State v.
Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 546, 552 S.E.2d 300, 311 (2001) ("A close
degree of similarity or connection between the prior bad act and the crime for
which the defendant is on trial is required to support admissibility under the
common scheme or plan exception."); State v. Tutton, 354 S.C. 319,
326, 580 S.E.2d 186, 190 (Ct. App. 2003) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard
of review specifically to admission of prior bad act evidence).

AFFIRMED.

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

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