THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF
The State, Respondent,
Charles Donnell Dublin, Appellant.
James R. Barber, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2005-UP-582
Heard November 8, 2005 – Filed November 16, 2005
Joseph L. Savitz, III, of
Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Charles Donnell Dublin appeals his convictions in Aiken County for murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.
Chris Corbitt, Chanelle Duncan (Corbitt’s girlfriend), Tony Rainey, and Thurmond “Duke” Jones were watching TV in Corbitt’s trailer on April 10, 1998, when
The admission or exclusion of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge whose decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Saltz, 346 S.C. 114, 121, 551 S.E.2d 240, 244 (2001). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s ruling is based on an error of law. State v. McLeod, 362 S.C. 73, 79, 606 S.E.2d 215, 219 (Ct. App. 2004). Error without prejudice does not warrant reversal. State v. Locklair, 341 S.C. 352, 365, 535 S.E.2d 420, 427 (2000).
Dublin argues the trial judge erred by ruling that his counsel opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence when he sought to impeach Tolliver by asking him questions about his involvement in other crimes committed in Orangeburg County.
When a party opens the door to evidence, he cannot claim prejudice from its admission. State v. Robinson, 305 S.C. 469, 474, 409 S.E.2d 404, 408 (1991); State v. Young, 364 S.C. 476, 485, 613 S.E.2d 386, 391 (
During the State’s direct examination, Tolliver admitted pleading guilty to the crimes involved in this case but denied both participating in these crimes and knowing
On cross-examination, defense counsel also spent significant time attempting to impeach Tolliver. Tolliver admitted to being arrested in
At the conclusion of Tolliver’s cross-examination, the State requested a bench conference. The State argued defense counsel opened the door when he asked Tolliver about the plea agreement and specific details of the Orangeburg murder. Defense counsel argued he did not open the door but simply responded to the questions asked by the State in direct examination. On re-direct, Tolliver confirmed
Assuming arguendo that the trial court erred in holding defense counsel opened the door, we find the admission of that evidence did not prejudice
In the present case, the eyewitnesses to the crime (Corbitt, Jones, and Duncan) gave nearly identical testimony regarding the events of April 10, 1998. Corbitt and Jones identified
GOOLSBY, ANDERSON, and SHORT, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.