Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2009-UP-266 - State v. McKenzie

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.

Marcus McKenzie, Appellant.


Appeal From Aiken County
Ralph F. Cothran, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-266
Submitted May 1, 2009 – Filed June 2, 2009   


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender Kathrine H. Hudgins, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Barbara R. Morgan, of Aiken, for Respondent. 

PER CURIAM: Marcus McKenzie was convicted of indecent exposure, sentenced to three years' imprisonment, and required to register as a sex offender.  McKenzie appeals his conviction and sentence, arguing the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a prior similar incident.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:  Rule 404(b), SCRE (holding evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts generally inadmissible to prove the defendant's guilt for the crime charged, but recognizing an exception to this rule where such evidence shows "motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent"); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 211, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265, 267 (2006) (placing the admission of evidence within the discretion of the trial court and indicating an abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law; predicating admissibility of a prior bad act upon its logical relation to the crime with which the defendant is charged; establishing judicial procedure for evaluating admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b), SCRE, and State v. Lyle, 125 S.C. 406, 416, 118 S.E. 803, 807 (1923); and holding prior bad act evidence that otherwise qualifies for admission under an exception to the general rule must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant); State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 546, 552 S.E.2d 300, 311 (2001) ("A close degree of similarity or connection between the prior bad act and the crime for which the defendant is on trial is required to support admissibility under the common scheme or plan exception."); State v. Tutton, 354 S.C. 319, 326, 580 S.E.2d 186, 190 (Ct. App. 2003) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard of review specifically to admission of prior bad act evidence).

AFFIRMED.

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


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