Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-095 - State v. Reilly

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.

Kevin Reilly, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
 D. Garrison Hill, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-095
Submitted February 2, 2009 – Filed February 23, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, of Columbia, and Thomas M. Creech, Jr., of Greenville, for Appellant. 

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Robert Mills Ariail, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Kevin Reilly appeals his convictions and sentences for kidnapping, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime, conspiracy, and assault and battery with intent to kill.  Reilly maintains the trial court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence of a prior bad act.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 404(b), SCRE (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.  It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.”); State v. Wilson, 345 S.C. 1, 6, 545 S.E.2d 827, 829 (2001) (“If there is any evidence to support the admission of the bad act evidence, the trial [court’s] ruling will not be disturbed on appeal.”); State v. Jenkins, 322 S.C. 414, 416, 472 S.E.2d 251, 252 (1996) (allowing evidence under the common plan or scheme exception where a close degree of similarity or connection existed between the bad act and the crime charged which enhanced the probative value of the evidence).

AFFIRMED.

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


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