 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Humphries8/6/2001
S.C. 465, 476 S.E.2d 916 (Ct. App. 1996), and State v. Campbell, 317 S.C. 449, 454 S.E.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1994), in reaching its conclusion the court erred in allowing the testimony regarding the subsequent bad act. Carter and Campbell are inapposite. Facially, factually and legally, these cases involve evidence of prior drug sales. By no stretch of the imagination does the instant case relate to prior drug sales.
The decision to admit contested evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 523 S.E.2d 787 (Ct. App. 1999). The ruling will not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion. State v. Needs, 333 S.C. 134, 508 S.E.2d 857 (1998). In the case at bar, the judge properly admitted the evidence regarding subsequent bad acts.
In determining the admissibility of bad act evidence, this Court does not re-evaluate the facts based on its own view of the preponderance of the evidence. We merely determine whether the trial judge's ruling is supported by any evidence. See State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 545 S.E.2d 827 (2001). Here, the opinion of the majority is violative of State v. Wilson. Indubitably, the majority used the wrong standard in determining admissibility because the majority weighed the evidence rather than reviewing the evidence presented at trial. Because there is evidence to support the admission of the bad act evidence in this case, I would AFFIRM the rulings of the trial judge and the convictions of Claude and Phil Humphries without resorting to a harmless error analysis.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|