Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2011-UP-281 - State v. Madden

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.

Verner E. Madden, Appellant.


Appeal From Greenville County
John C. Few, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No.  2011-UP-281 
Submitted May 1, 2011 – Filed June 10, 2011


AFFIRMED


Appellate Defender LaNelle Cantey DuRant, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, and Assistant Attorney General David Spencer, all of Columbia; and W. Walter Wilkins, of Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Verner E. Madden appeals his conviction for committing a lewd act upon a child under the age of sixteen.  He contends the trial court erred in (1) declining to grant his post-verdict motion for a new trial and (2) not permitting a sample piece of fence to be entered into evidence.  We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1.  As to whether the trial court erred in declining to grant the motion for a new trial: State v. Taylor, 348 S.C. 152, 159, 558 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ct. App. 2002) (holding that a new trial motion should not be granted in a criminal case where evidence supports the conviction).

2.  As to whether the trial court erred in not permitting the sample piece of fence to be entered into evidence: Rule 403, SCRE (providing that relevant evidence "may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of . . . confusion of the issues[] or misleading the jury").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, WILLIAMS, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.


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