State v. Derrick McIlwain

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.

Derrick Allen McIlwain, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2022-001425

Appeal From Lancaster County
Kristi F. Curtis, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2025-UP-381
Submitted November 1, 2025 – Filed November 26, 2025

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender Joanna Katherine Delany, of
Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Deputy
Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant
Deputy Attorney General Melody Jane Brown, and
Senior Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, all
of Columbia; and Solicitor Randy E. Newman, Jr., of
Lancaster, all for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Derrick Allen McIlwain appeals his conviction for murder and
sentence of life without parole. On appeal, McIlwain argues the trial court erred
by admitting State's Exhibits 10, 12-14, 16-19, 32-37, 39-40, and 42-46—crime
scene and morgue photographs—because they had no probative value and were
unfairly prejudicial. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR.

We hold McIlwain's argument that the trial court erred when it admitted State's
Exhibits 32-37, 39-40, and 42-46 is not preserved for appellate review. See State
v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138, 142, 587 S.E.2d 691, 693 (2003) ("[F]or an issue to be
preserved for appellate review, it must have been raised to and ruled upon by the
trial [court]." (emphasis added)).

We also hold the trial court did not err by admitting State's Exhibits 10, 12-14, and
16-19 because their probative value was not substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice. See State v. Martucci, 380 S.C. 232, 249, 669 S.E.2d
598, 607 (Ct. App. 2008) ("The relevance, materiality, and admissibility of
photographs are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court and a ruling
will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion."); State v. Pagan,
369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("An abuse of discretion occurs
when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are
controlled by an error of law."); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence
may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of
unfair prejudice . . . or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."). The State
used these crime scene photographs to show the jurors the extensive bruising on
Victim's neck and to establish Victim died from strangulation and not from a drug
overdose. See State v. Gleaton, 444 S.C. 394, 418, 906 S.E.2d 630, 642-43 (Ct.
App. 2024) (finding the photographs "had significant probative value" because
they "visually demonstrated the causes of [the v]ictim's death in a way testimony
alone could not"); State v. Jones, 440 S.C. 214, 259, 891 S.E.2d 347, 371 (2023)
("Photographs are relevant if they 'depict the bodies of the murder victims in
substantially the same condition in which the defendant left them.'" (quoting State
v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 289, 350 S.E.2d 180, 185 (1986))); State v. Benton,
443 S.C. 1, 9, 901 S.E.2d 701, 705 (2024) (explaining the photographs were
relevant because they "depicted the crime scene" and possessed "probative force
from their unique power to make Benton's accomplices' testimon[ies] more
believable" by "g[iving] important context to the testimony and other evidence
about who did what at the scene").
AFFIRMED.1

KONDUROS, GEATHERS, and VINSON, JJ., concur.

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