Opinion
Appellate Case No. 2015-000907 Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-459
11-09-2016
The State, Respondent, v. Jack Randall Moore, Appellant.
Oscar W. Bannister, of Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Charles J. Hodge, of Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
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. Appeal From Spartanburg County
R. Keith Kelly, Circuit Court Judge
AFFIRMED
Oscar W. Bannister, of Bannister, Wyatt & Stalvey, LLC, of Greenville, for Appellant. Charles J. Hodge, of Hodge & Langley Law Firm, PC, of Spartanburg, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the [circuit] court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion."); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the [circuit] court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law."); Rule 801(d)(1), SCRE ("A statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony . . . ."); Wright v. Hiester Constr. Co., 389 S.C. 504, 520, 698 S.E.2d 822, 831 (Ct. App. 2010) ("[T]he South Carolina Rules of Evidence contemplate that use of a prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes is permitted only when the proponent is seeking to impeach a declarant who has testified at trial inconsistently with the prior statement."). AFFIRMED. LOCKEMY, C.J., and SHORT and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR. --------