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,
Barry Allen Evans, Appellant.
Appeal From Anderson County
J.C. Buddy Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2011-UP-147
Submitted April 1, 2011 – Filed April 11, 2011
Appellate Defender Lanelle C. Durant, of Columbia, for Appellant.
Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Julie M. Thames, all of Columbia; Solicitor Christina Theos Adams, of Anderson, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant Barry Allen Evans appeals his convictions for assault and battery with intent to kill and possession of a weapon. On appeal, Evans argues the trial court erred in: (1) denying Evans' motion to suppress the 911 tapes; (2) denying Evans' motion to suppress photographs of the victim's injuries; and (3) overruling Evans' objection to a statement made by the solicitor when cross-examining a witness. We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:
1. As to the denial of Evans' motions to suppress: Rule 403, SCRE (excluding relevant evidence if the court determines its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect); State v. Shuler, 353 S.C. 176, 185-86, 577 S.E.2d 438, 442-43 (2003) (finding the probative value of 911 tapes outweighed their prejudicial nature because the tapes described the scene of the crime immediately after the crime occurred); State v. Pagan, 369 S.C. 201, 208, 631 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2006) (holding rulings on the admissibility of evidence are within the trial court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion resulting in prejudice); State v. Todd, 290 S.C. 212, 214, 349 S.E.2d 339, 340 (1986) ("There is no abuse of discretion if the offered photograph serves to corroborate testimony."); State v. Bennett, 369 S.C. 219, 228-29, 632 S.E.2d 281, 286-87 (2006) (affirming the trial court's admission of hospital photos of the victim that were introduced to show the extent of the victim's injuries).
2. As to overruling Evans' objection: State v. Mitchell, 330 S.C. 189, 196, 498 S.E.2d 642, 645 (1998) (noting a trial court’s ruling on the scope of cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal absent a “manifest abuse of discretion").
HUFF, SHORT, and PIEPER, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.