Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-058 - State v. Jamison

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.

Andra Byron Jamison, Appellant.


Appeal From Lexington County
R. Knox McMahon, Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-058
Heard November 16, 2011 – Filed February 1, 2012   


AFFIRMED


Jeremy A. Thompson, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Farthing, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, of Lexington, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Andra Jamison appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence resulting in death.  We find the State denied Jamison a reasonable opportunity to obtain testing of his own blood sample, and therefore the trial court erred in admitting the results of testing the State performed on its sample of Jamison's blood.  See S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-2946 (2006) ("A person who is tested or gives samples for testing may have a qualified person of his choice conduct additional tests at his expense . . . ."); see also State v. Lewis, 266 S.C. 45, 48, 221 S.E.2d 524, 526 (1976) (holding a DUI suspect who refuses to take a breathalyzer test is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain independent testing of his blood).  However, we find the error to be harmless and affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Sims, 387 S.C. 557, 566-67, 694 S.E.2d 9, 14-15 (2010) (finding erroneous admission of evidence was harmless, and therefore did not warrant reversal, when guilt was conclusively proven by other evidence such that no other rational conclusion could be reached); State v. Wilson, 296 S.C. 73, 76, 370 S.E.2d 715, 716 (1988) (finding erroneous admission of blood test results was not prejudicial in a DUI trial when other evidence demonstrated defendant's intoxication). 

AFFIRMED.

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