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 SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Donald D. Baker, Appellant.
Appeal From Berkeley County
Daniel F. Pieper, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2008-UP-085
Submitted February 1, 2008 – Filed February 8, 2008
Appellate Defender Katherine Hudgins, South Carolina Commission on Indigent Defense, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Office of the Attorney General, of Columbia; and Solicitor Ralph E. Hoisington, of Charleston, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Donald D. Baker appeals from his convictions for criminal domestic violence of a high and aggravated nature and criminal domestic violence, third offense. He argues the trial court erred by refusing to admit a photograph depicting his medical condition, a crucial part of his self-defense claim. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 403, SCRE (“Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed . . . by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”); State v. Haselden, 353 S.C. 190, 199, 577 S.E.2d 445, 450 (2003) (“The relevance, materiality and admissibility of photographs are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court and a ruling will be disturbed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion.”).
ANDERSON, SHORT, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.