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
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Samuel Junior Hastings, Appellant.
J. C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-247
Submitted May 1, 2006 – Filed May 18, 2006
Robert Clyde Childs, III, of
Greenville, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, Office of the Attorney General, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Samuel J. Hastings appeals from his convictions on two counts of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Hastings challenges: (1) the admission of two bloodstained shirts, owned by one of the victims, which were not provided to him for inspection prior to trial; (2) admission of color photographs of a victim’s injuries; and (3) comments by the trial judge during sentencing, which Hastings maintains indicate improper consideration of his exercise of the rights to a jury trial and to testify in his own defense. We affirm.
On the night of August 31, 2003, a group of regulars were dancing at a bar known as Cadillac Ranch in
The woman told
The bouncers immediately sought to contain
A jury convicted
1. Admission of the Bloody Shirts
Rule 5(a)(1)(C) of the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows:
Upon request of the defendant the prosecution shall permit the defendant to inspect . . . tangible objects . . . which are within the possession, custody or control of the prosecution, and which are material to the preparation of his defense or are intended for use by the prosecution as evidence in chief at the trial . . . .
The trial judge may, among other things, suppress evidence at trial that has been withheld in violation of Rule 5. Rule 5(d)(2), SCRCrimP. The decision to admit evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and may only be reversed on a finding of abuse of discretion. State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 377, 580 S.E.2d 785, 793 (Ct. App 2003). Furthermore, any such abuse of discretion must result in prejudice to the defendant. State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 77, 538 S.E.2d 257, 263 (Ct. App. 2000).
At trial, the State sought to introduce an undershirt and outer shirt worn by one of the bouncers. The shirts were cut and stained with blood.
This case is quite different, as the shirts could easily have been provided. The State certainly had access to the shirts, as evidenced by the photographs it furnished to counsel for
The State further argues that its “open file” policy satisfied the inspection requirement.
The better practice would have been for the State to turn over the evidence. We find no reversible error because
2. Color Photograph of the Victim’s injuries
Hastings next argues that color photographs of the injuries to the other bouncer’s legs should have been suppressed under Rule 403, SCRE, because they were more prejudicial than the black and white photographs. We disagree.
“It is well settled that evidence should be excluded when its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect.” State v. Kelley, 319 S.C. 173, 177, 460 S.E.2d 368, 370 (1995). “The determination of the relevancy and materiality of a photograph is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
In the instant case the photographs had some probative value as to the jury’s consideration of the greater offense of assault and battery with intent to kill and the lesser included offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. Tate v. State, 351 S.C. 418, 427, 570 S.E.2d 522, 527 (2002) (holding that ABHAN is the unlawful act of violent injury to another accompanied by circumstances of aggravation, such as use of a deadly weapon). The trial found that the color photographs depicted the wounds better than the black and white ones did. We find no abuse of discretion in admitting the photographs. See, e.g., State v. Fletcher, 363 S.C. 221, 257-259, 609 S.E.2d 572, 591-92 (Ct. App. 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion in the admission of graphic post-mortem photographs because they were necessary to depict the severity of the injuries and the discoloration of the bruises); State v. Jarrell, 350 S.C. 90, 106-107, 564 S.E.2d 362, 371 (Ct. App. 2002) (upholding the admission of graphic autopsy photographs because they corroborated testimony and demonstrated the extent of the injuries).
3. Trial Judge’s Comments during Sentencing
We find that the admission of the victim’s shirts did not constitute reversible error as no prejudicial harm to defendant resulted. We further find no abuse of discretion in the admission of the color photographs of the victim’s injuries.
KITTREDGE, SHORT, and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.