State v. Faile

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Justin Dru Faile, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 14, 2018

Appellate Case No. 2015-000305 (S.C. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2018)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2015-000305 Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-110

03-14-2018

The State, Respondent, v. Justin Dru Faile, Appellant.

Tara Melissa Edwards-Vitollo, of Vitollo Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, 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 York County
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Tara Melissa Edwards-Vitollo, of Vitollo Law Firm, LLC, of North Charleston, and Chief Appellate Defender Robert Michael Dudek, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan McCrory Wilson, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Benjamin Aplin, and Assistant Attorney General Joshua Abraham Edwards, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Kevin Scott Brackett, of York, for Respondent. PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Thompson, 420 S.C. 386, 395, 803 S.E.2d 44, 49 (Ct. App. 2017) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion." (quoting State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006))); id. ("An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law." (quoting Pagan, 369 S.C. at 208, 631 S.E.2d at 265)); Rule 403, SCRE ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."); Thompson, 420 S.C. at 395-96, 803 S.E.2d at 49 ("This court will not reverse the trial court's decision regarding a Rule 403 objection absent an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice."). AFFIRMED. ¹ LOCKEMY, C.J., and WILLIAMS and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

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