From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Geathers

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 2, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-259   (S.C. Ct. App. May. 2, 2012)

Opinion

2012-UP-259

05-02-2012

The State, Respondent, v. Craig Geathers, Appellant.

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Submitted April 2, 2012

Appeal From Georgetown County, Benjamin H. Culbertson, Circuit Court Judge.

Appellate Defender Elizabeth A. Franklin-Best, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor J. Gregory Hembree, of Conway, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM

Craig Geathers appeals his convictions of armed robbery and kidnapping, arguing the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant testimony. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 116, 716 S.E.2d 895, 903 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the [trial] court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); Rule 401, SCRE ("'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."); State v. Aleksey, 343 S.C. 20, 35-36, 538 S.E.2d 248, 256 (2000) (holding a statement that related to the defendant's motive was relevant and, therefore, admissible); Rule 404(a), SCRE (noting character evidence is inadmissible only when used for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith); State v. Sweat, 362 S.C. 117, 132, 606 S.E.2d 508, 516 (Ct. App. 2004) (noting a trial court is given broad discretion in making a Rule 403, SCRE, determination).

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

AFFIRMED.

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Geathers

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
May 2, 2012
Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-259   (S.C. Ct. App. May. 2, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Geathers

Case Details

Full title:The State, Respondent, v. Craig Geathers, Appellant.

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

Date published: May 2, 2012

Citations

Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-259   (S.C. Ct. App. May. 2, 2012)