Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-201 - In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Michael Hargrove

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

In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Michael Hargrove, Appellant.


Appeal From Charleston County
 J. Michelle Childs, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-201
Submitted April 1, 2009 – Filed May 18, 2009  


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle C. DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah R.J. Shupe, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Hargrove appeals his commitment to the South Carolina Department of Mental Health (the Department) as a sexually violent predator. On appeal, Hargrove contends the arrest warrant and affidavit associated with a previous guilty plea to assault and battery with intent to kill were improperly admitted into evidence because the two documents constituted inadmissible hearsay.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the circuit court erred in admitting the arrest warrant and affidavit into evidence: Rule 703, SCRE, Rule 801(c), SCRE, Rule 803, SCRE; State v. Harris, 318 S.C. 178, 181, 456 S.E.2d 433, 435 (Ct. App. 1995) (stating the qualification of an expert witness and the admissibility of an expert’s testimony are matters within the circuit court’s sound discretion); Jones v. Doe, 372 S.C. 53, 63, 640 S.E.2d 514, 519 (Ct. App. 2006) (“[T]he expert may testify to evidence even though it is inadmissible under the hearsay rule, but allowing the evidence to be received for this purpose does not mean it is admitted for its truth. It is received only for the limited purpose of informing the jury of the basis of the expert’s opinion and therefore does not constitute a true hearsay exception."); Halbersberg v. Berry, 302 S.C. 97, 103, 394 S.E.2d 7, 11 (Ct. App. 1990) (explaining an expert witness may state an opinion based on facts not within her firsthand knowledge).

2.  As to whether the admission of the arrest warrant and affidavit violated his right to confront witnesses: Wilder Corp. v. Wilke, 330 S.C. 71, 76, 497 S.E.2d 731, 733 (1998) (“It is axiomatic that an issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must have been raised to and ruled upon by the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review.").

AFFIRMED.

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


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