State v. Wilder

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Anthony D. Wilder, Appellant.

Court: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 9, 2011

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-385 (S.C. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2011)

Opinion

Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-385

08-09-2011

The State, Respondent, v. Anthony D. Wilder, Appellant.

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John McIntosh, Assistant Deputy General Attorney Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

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 Charleston County

J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Chief Appellate Defender Robert M. Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John McIntosh, Assistant Deputy General Attorney Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General J. Anthony Mabry, of Columbia; and Solicitor Scarlett Anne Wilson, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM : Anthony D. Wilder was convicted of murder, assault and battery with intent to kill (ABWCK), two counts of kidnapping, and first-degree burglary and sentenced to life imprisonment. Wilder appeals, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the admission of DNA evidence collected from his pants. Specifically, Wilder contends the chain of custody and sloppy handling of his pants created a strong chance the DNA evidence was contaminated, and therefore, totally unreliable. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the trial court erred in admitting the DNA evidence developed from Wilder's pants: State v. Ramsey, 345 S.C. 607, 615, 550 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2001) (finding conflicting theories of how evidence was collected and the potential for contamination related did not render DNA evidence so tainted it was totally unreliable).

2. Assuming the trial court erred in admitting the DNA evidence developed from Wilder's pants: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 212-13, 631 S.E.2d 262, 267-68 (2006) (finding error in admitting evidence of defendant's failure to stop for a blue light was harmless because defendant was not prejudiced and other competent evidence established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

AFFIRMED .

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.