Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2010-UP-553 - State v. Oliver

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.

Stanley Rasheem Oliver, Appellant.


Appeal From Richland County
 G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2010-UP-553
Submitted December 1, 2010 – Filed December 21, 2010


AFFIRMED


Senior Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, and Solicitor Warren Blair Giese, all of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Stanley Rasheem Oliver appeals his convictions and sentence of life imprisonment for three counts of murder, two counts of armed robbery, kidnapping, and first-degree burglary.  Oliver argues the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the witness's signed, written statement when the witness remembered giving a statement but denied the substance of the statement.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule  220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:  State v. Blalock, 357 S.C. 74, 80, 591 S.E.2d 632, 636 (Ct. App. 2003) ("[A] witness's failure to fully recall her prior statement has been found to be a sufficient denial to allow extrinsic evidence . . . for otherwise the witness might in every such case exclude evidence of what he has done or said by answering that he did not remember."); State v. Miller, 262 S.C. 369, 371, 204 S.E.2d 738, 738-39 (1974) (holding witness's prior inconsistent statement was admissible where witness admitted signing the statement but failed to remember the incriminating statements about the defendant); State v. Carmack, 388 S.C. 190, 201, 694 S.E.2d 224, 229 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding admission of prior inconsistent statement "must be unequivocal").  

AFFIRMED.

FEW, C.J., and SHORT and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.


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