State v. Murphy

Full title: The State, Respondent, v. Rashawn Murphy, Appellant.

Court: STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 16, 2013

Appellate Case No. 2011-188766 (S.C. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 2013)

Opinion

Appellate Case No. 2011-188766 Unpublished Opinion No. 2013-UP-028

01-16-2013

The State, Respondent, v. Rashawn Murphy, Appellant.

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant. Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, 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 Spartanburg County

Letitia H. Verdin, Family Court Judge

AFFIRMED

Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General Christina J. Catoe, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barry Barnette, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM : Affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Cope, 385 S.C. 274, 283, 684 S.E.2d 177, 181 (Ct. App. 2009) ("The trial [court] has considerable latitude in ruling on the admissibility of evidence and his decision should not be disturbed absent prejudicial abuse of discretion."); State v. Burgess, 391 S.C. 15, 23, 703 S.E.2d 512, 517 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding State v. Gregory, 198 S.C. 98, 16 S.E.2d 532 (1941), is "the appropriate standard for evaluating the admissibility of evidence of third[-]party guilt"); Gregory, 198 S.C. at 104, 16 S.E.2d at 534 ("[E]vidence offered by [the] accused [of third-party guilt] must be limited to such facts as are inconsistent with his own guilt, and to such facts as raise a reasonable inference or presumption as to his own innocence . . . ."); id. ("[E]vidence which can have (no) other effect than to cast a bare suspicion upon another, or to raise a conjectural inference as to the commission of the crime by another, is not admissible."); id. at 104-05, 16 S.E.2d at 535 (holding evidence of third-party guilt must clearly point to another person as the guilty party in order to be admissible); id. at 105, 16 S.E.2d at 535 ("Remote acts, disconnected and outside the crime itself, cannot be separately proved for such a purpose."). AFFIRMED.¹

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

HUFF, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.