Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-247 - State v. Graham

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE.  IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

The State, Respondent,

v.

Albert Graham, Appellant.


Appeal From Saluda County
William P. Keesley, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2009-UP-247
Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed May 28, 2009


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender M. Celia Robinson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Senior Assistant Attorney Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Albert Graham appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature, arguing the trial court erred in admitting a photograph of the alleged crime scene where a witness testified the photographs did not truly or accurately represent the scene as it existed on the date of the accident.  In this case, the alleged incident occurred inside a trailer, with a portion of the event taking place on a couch.  The State introduced pictures of the interior of the trailer to corroborate the victim’s testimony. The victim testified the photographs accurately reflected the layout of the trailer, but did not depict the inside of the trailer as it was on the date of the assault because the couches had been replaced.  In explanation, the victim testified the couch in the photograph was about the same size as the original couch. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Tucker, 324 S.C. 155, 167, 478 S.E.2d 260, 266 (1996) (stating "If [] photographs serve to corroborate testimony, it is not an abuse of discretion to admit them," and "[a] photograph should be excluded only if it is calculated to arouse the jury's sympathy or prejudice or is irrelevant or unnecessary to substantiate facts.") (citations omitted); State v. Campbell, 259 S.C. 339, 344, 191 S.E.2d 770, 773 (1972) ("Even as one who saw the scene is permitted from memory to describe it verbally, he is usually permitted to describe it using a photograph which he can identify."). 

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur.        


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