Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2012-UP-197 - State v. Williams

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.

Lewis David Williams, Appellant.


Appeal From Florence County
Ralph K. Anderson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2012-UP-197
Heard March 12, 2012 – Filed March 21, 2012  


AFFIRMED


Deputy Chief Appellate Defender Wanda H. Carter, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Attorney General Alan Wilson, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General Deborah Shupe, all of Columbia, and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM:  Lewis Williams appeals his convictions for armed robbery, first-degree burglary, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.  His case arises out of the robbery of an apartment in Florence, South Carolina.  The victims told police four men robbed them.  The police apprehended three men through their investigation.  The men implicated each other but did not mention a fourth participant in the robbery.  However, two of the men later implicated Williams.  One man testified at trial that he did not initially implicate Williams because he was afraid of him because "he is in a gang."  On appeal, Williams argues the trial court's decision to admit the testimony of his alleged gang membership was error under Rule 403, SCRE.  We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: State v. Dickerson, 395 S.C. 101, 116, 716 S.E.2d 895, 903 (2011) ("The admission of evidence is within the circuit court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion."); State v. Adams, 354 S.C. 361, 378, 580 S.E.2d 785, 794 (Ct. App. 2003) ("A trial judge's decision regarding the comparative probative value and prejudicial effect of evidence should be reversed only in exceptional circumstances.  We . . . are obligated to give great deference to the trial court's judgment [regarding Rule 403]." (internal citation omitted)).

The decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

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