State v. Hurell

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Dent

    442 S.C. 38 (S.C. Ct. App. 2024)

    Accordingly, we find Victim’s personal knowledge of the scene and subject of the photos was sufficient to authenticate them. See State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 353-54, 818 S.E.2d 21, 27 (Ct. App. 2018) ("Normally, it is sufficient for the admission of photographs that a person familiar with the subject, such as a scene, testify that the photographs truly represent what they purport to depict." (quoting Alex Sanders & John S. Nichols, Trial Handbook for South Carolina Lawyers § 19:12 (Sept. 2017))).

  2. State v. Dent

    No. 6034 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023)

    Accordingly, we find Victim's personal knowledge of the scene and subject of the photos was sufficient to authenticate them. See State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 353-54, 818 S.E.2d 21, 27 (Ct. App. 2018) ("Normally, it is sufficient for the admission of photographs that a person familiar with the subject, such as a scene, testify that the photographs truly represent what they purport to depict."

  3. State v. Jolly

    Appellate Case No. 2018-000259 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2020)

    Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding evidence of the lewd acts committed by Jolly against Victim within the timeframe of the Lewd Act indictment were direct evidence of a crime Jolly was being prosecuted for committing, rather than prior bad acts. See State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 351, 818 S.E.2d 21, 26 (Ct. App. 2018) ("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.

  4. State v. Jolly

    2020-UP-327 (S.C. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2020)

    Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding evidence of the lewd acts committed by Jolly against Victim within the timeframe of the Lewd Act indictment were direct evidence of a crime Jolly was being prosecuted for committing, rather than prior bad acts. See State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 351, 818 S.E.2d 21, 26 (Ct. App. 2018) ("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.

  5. State v. Ryals

    2019-UP-355 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2019)

    ject matter falls outside the realm of ordinary lay knowledge."); State v. Jones, 423 S.C. 631, 635, 817 S.E.2d 268, 270 (2018) ("The admissibility of an expert's testimony is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion and the determination will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("A trial court's ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony constitutes an abuse of discretion where the ruling is unsupported by the evidence or controlled by an error of law."); id. at 637, 816 S.E.2d at 271 (holding in a sexual abuse case that expert testimony regarding behavioral characteristics that do not comport with what a reasonable person would expect under the circumstances is subject matter outside the ordinary knowledge of the jury). 2.As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony that was irrelevant: State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 354, 818 S.E.2d 21, 27 (Ct. App. 2018) ("Under Rule 401, SCRE, evidence is relevant if it has a direct bearing upon and tends to establish or make more or less probable the matter in controversy.") (quoting State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003)); State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 474-75, 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding expert testimony concerning common behavioral characteristics of victims is relevant and helpful in educating the jury on certain aspects of victim behavior). 3.As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony that improperly bolstered the credibility of the witness: State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340, 358, 737 S.E.2d 490, 499 (2013) ("[E]ven though experts are permitted to give an opinion, they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others."); State v. McKerley, 397 S.C. 461, 464, 725 S.E.2d 139, 141 (Ct. A

  6. State v. Ryals

    Appellate Case No. 2017-001090 (S.C. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2019)

    2. As to whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing expert testimony that was irrelevant: State v. Hurell, 424 S.C. 341, 354, 818 S.E.2d 21, 27 (Ct. App. 2018) ("Under Rule 401, SCRE, evidence is relevant if it has a direct bearing upon and tends to establish or make more or less probable the matter in controversy.") (quoting State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003)); State v. Weaverling, 337 S.C. 460, 474-75, 523 S.E.2d 787, 794 (Ct. App. 1999) (holding expert testimony concerning common behavioral characteristics of victims is relevant and helpful in educating the jury on certain aspects of victim behavior). 3.