Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-415 - State v. Byrd

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.

Joshua Nathan Byrd, Appellant.


Appeal From Cherokee County
 Roger L. Couch, Special Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2010-UP-415
Submitted September 1, 2010 – Filed September 20, 2010


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, and Assistant Attorney General William M. Blitch, Jr., all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Joshua Nathan Byrd appeals his conviction and sentence for assault and battery with intent to kill, arguing the trial court erred in permitting hearsay evidence at trial.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 801(c), SCRE ("'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."); Rule 802, SCRE (providing hearsay is generally inadmissible unless it fits into one of the exceptions enumerated by the South Carolina Rules of Evidence); Caprood v. State, 338 S.C. 103, 111, 525 S.E.2d 514, 518 (2000) ("An out of court statement is not hearsay if it is offered for the limited purpose of explaining why a government investigation was undertaken."); State v. Mansfield, 343 S.C. 66, 77, 538 S.E.2d 257, 263 (Ct. App. 2000) (placing admissibility of evidence within the sound discretion of the trial court and holding "evidentiary rulings of the trial court will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion or the commission of legal error which results in prejudice to the defendant"). 

AFFIRMED. 

WILLIAMS, PIEPER, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.


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