Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-094 - State v. Sims

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,

v.

Brian Sims, Appellant.


Appeal From Cherokee County
 J. Derham Cole, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-094
Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed February 23, 2009   


AFFIRMED


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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Michelle J. Parsons, all of Columbia and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Brian Sims appeals his assault and battery with intent to kill conviction and fifteen-year sentence arguing the trial court erred in allowing the State to improperly vouch for a witness.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Matthews v. State, 350 S.C. 272, 276, 565 S.E.2d 766, 768 (2002). (“Vouching for a witness based on outside material conveys the impression to the jury that the solicitor has evidence not presented to the jury but known by the prosecution which supports conviction.”); State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 630, 545 S.E.2d 805, 818 (2001) (finding the State improperly vouches for a witness by placing “the government’s prestige behind a witness by making explicit personal assurances of a witness’[s] veracity, or where a prosecutor implicitly vouches for a witness’[s] veracity by indicating information not presented to the jury supports the testimony”); State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 630, 545 S.E.2d 805, 818 (2001) (holding the State did not vouch for a witness by mentioning a plea agreement’s provision requiring the witness tell the truth  when the State neither implied special knowledge or guaranteed veracity of the testimony).

AFFIRMED.

HEARN, C.J., PIEPER and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.


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