Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-394 - State v. Moses

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.

George Moses, Appellant.


Appeal From Orangeburg County
 James C. Williams, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-394
Submitted August 2, 2010 – Filed August 30, 2010


AFFIRMED


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

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Norman Mark Rapoport, all of Columbia; and Solicitor David Michael Pascoe, Jr.,  of Orangeburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: George Moses was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and armed robbery.  The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment.  On appeal, Moses argues the trial court denied him his Fifth Amendment right to counsel by admitting a written statement he gave the police after he invoked his right to counsel.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) ("The admission of evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.  An abuse of discretion occurs when the conclusions of the trial court either lack evidentiary support or are controlled by an error of law.") (citation omitted); State v. Rochester, 301 S.C. 196, 201, 391 S.E.2d 244, 247 (1990) (holding the admission of improper evidence is harmless when evidence is merely cumulative to other evidence); State v. Jarrell, 350 S.C. 90, 100-01, 564 S.E.2d 362, 368 (Ct. App. 2002) (finding harmless error when the statement was almost identical to the testimony of three witnesses at trial).  

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., KONDUROS and LOCKEMY, JJ., concur. 


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